Good evening and welcome to the June 22nd City Council meeting.

I will uh I'm Mayor Collins is not available tonight, so we'll have to suffer through me.

I apologize in advance.

Uh with that, could we um could we call roll, please?

Mr.

White.

Present.

Mr.

Wolf.

Here.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Present.

Mayor Collins.

Dr.

Emmons?

Present.

Mr.

Escabel?

Here.

Mr.

Laborne.

Present.

Mr.

Moody.

Present.

Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Seagrake.

Present.

Two members are absent.

We do have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

One thing I forgot is please silence your uh devices for us.

And with that, can we say the pledge of allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the police.

Okay.

And to the republic for which states.

With that, first item, please.

Consent agenda.

All agenda items listed with the designation of CA are considered to be routine items by the governing body and will be enacted by one motion.

There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a member of the governing body so requests in support by two other members is received.

Any item removed from the consent agenda will be considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.

All right.

Are there any items that a council member would like removed from the consent agenda?

Mr.

President.

Councilman Labourne.

Number 19, please.

19.

Is there a concur.

19 will be removed.

Are there any other items that we would like removed?

With that, I would take a motion to I'm sorry.

Move to approve.

Second.

We have a motion by Dr.

Aldrich, second by Councilman Escobel.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Unanimous uh decision on the consent agenda.

Next item, please.

Number six, ordinance, third reading, defining the terms and conditions of employment for sworn officers of the Cheyenne Police Department for July 2026 until the end of fiscal year 2027.

This item um sets forth the police department umployment uh regulations for the year.

Um we'll open it up to discussion online.

Jennifer, is there anybody online that would like to discuss this?

There's no one online.

We'll close that.

Anyone in the room that would like to discuss this?

Anyone in the room?

Seeing none, could I have a motion, please?

Mr.

Escobel.

Mr.

President, the recommendation of the finance committee is to approve on third and final reading, and I so move.

Second.

We have a motion by Councilman Escabel, second by uh Councilman Moody.

Discussion from the dias.

Discussion.

I have one question.

Uh Dr.

Aldrich.

Councilman Seagrave.

Uh, through you.

I am just want to uh confirm that the extra duty pay um I believe if I read this correctly is limited to one extra duty.

Um who could help us with this?

Mr.

James, Captain James, Captain James.

Uh Councilman Seabrave, Captain David James, China Police Department, our on call specialty pay is limited to two per officer.

So that did not change in this.

Correct.

That did not change.

Thank you, sir.

Further discussion on the dies.

Discussion.

Hearing none, could we um take roll call, please?

Mr.

Seagrave?

Yes.

Mr.

White?

Yes.

Mr.

Wolf.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Yes.

Dr.

Emmons?

Yes.

Mr.

Escobel.

Aye.

Mr.

Laborne.

Aye.

Mr.

Moody.

Aye.

Unanimous vote.

Motion is approved.

Next item, please.

Number seven, ordinance, third reading.

Amending section 1.3.11.

Nonconformities 1.4.4 definitions.

1.4.5 interpretation of zoning map.

2.2.7 special use approval.

5.1.2 zoning districts established and 5.1.4 use table and creating 5.6.10 regional entertainment re overlay district and 5.7.13 gaming center development standards and setting an effective date for compliance.

This item came about the legislature changed who is allowed to decide where gaming or historic horse racing, some people call them casinos, can be located.

In the past, it was uh the county commissioners that made that decision.

So what we've done is create an ordinance that discusses where they can be established by right.

Basically, that's in your commercial areas.

So that's what we're discussing tonight.

And we'll certainly open it up to the public.

Jennifer, is there anyone online that would like to discuss this?

There's no one online, so we'll close that.

How about in the audience?

Anyone here that would like to discuss this?

Uh, in front of the council?

Yes, ma'am.

Please identify yourself and thank you.

Uh Tracy Laycock, general counsel for Wyming Downs and 307 horse racing.

Excuse me, thank you.

Just quickly, um, we do encourage you to support the substitute that was discussed by the public services committee.

Um, that will ensure that all of the locations um have time to then apply for the special use uh in front of you all.

And we do appreciate all the hard work from the planning commission um and the public services committee on this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Anyone else?

Seeing none.

Uh, could I have a oh, President Seagray, can I just for the record um announce that Dr.

Renee to join the meeting at 6.06 p.m.?

Fabulous.

Thank you.

Welcome, Dr.

Rennie.

Um, could we have a motion, please?

Dr.

Aldridge.

Mr.

President, the recommendation of the public services committee is to approve on third and final reading, and I so move.

Second.

We have a motion by Dr.

Aldrich, second by Dr.

Emmons.

Mr.

President, I move to amend by substitute dated June 15th, 2026.

Second.

We have a motion to amend and a second.

Uh can you describe the motion for the amendment?

Sorry.

Uh President Seagrave, the amendment was to clarify the um concern that had been brought forward with um where these could be located in uh conjunction with child care centers and facilities.

Yes.

We'll open it up online discussion.

Jennifer, anyone to discuss the amendment?

No one online.

We'll close that.

How about how about in the uh room here?

Anyone that would like to discuss the proposed amendment.

Anyone?

See none.

We'll bring it up to the dias.

Uh discussion on the amendment.

Anyone?

All right, we'll take a vote on the amendment.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Unanimously approved the amendment.

We're back to the main motion on the overlay district.

Discussion on the dais.

Seeing none, could we take the vote, please?

Dr.

Rennie.

Yes.

Mr.

Seagrave.

Yes.

Mr.

White?

Yes.

Mr.

Wolf.

Yes.

Dr.

Aldrich?

Yes.

Dr.

Emmons.

Yes.

Mr.

Escabel.

Aye.

Mr.

Labourne.

Aye.

Mr.

Moody.

Aye.

Uh unanimous unanimously approved the amended ordinance.

Next item, please.

Number A, ordinance, third reading.

Amending chapter 15.20, National Electrical Code adopted, appendix K International Building Code, Administrative Provisions Adopted of Title 15, Buildings and Construction of the Municipal Code of the City of Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Updating the incorporated National Electrical Code Provisions as specified.

This item is in front of the governing body.

With that, Jennifer, is there anyone online that would like to discuss the National Electrical Code changes, we're required to update our ordinances to comply with state statutes.

So that's what we're doing here tonight.

No one online.

How about in the room?

Is there anyone in the room that would like to discuss this?

Anyone?

Seeing none, we'll close discussion on that.

And Dr.

Aldrich, could we have a motion, please?

Mr.

President, the recommendation of the public services committee is to approve on third and final reading, and I so move.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Councilman Wolf.

Discussion on a dais.

Discussion.

Hearing none, uh, could we take the roll call, please?

Mr.

Moody?

Hi.

Dr.

Rennie.

Yes.

Mr.

Seagrave.

Yes.

Mr.

White?

Yes.

Mr.

Wolf?

Yes.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Yes.

Dr.

Emmons?

Yes.

Mr.

Escal.

Aye.

Mr.

Labourne.

Hi.

This item is unanimously adopted.

Next item, please.

Number nine ordinance, second reading, annexing to the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, land located south of Charles Street, east of Wanandi Avenue, and west of McKinley Avenue.

This is a uh owner owner requested ordinance annexation.

Is there anyone online that would like to discuss this proposed annexation?

No one online.

How about in the audience here?

Anyone that would like to discuss this annexation.

Anyone?

Hearing none, we'll close public comment and we'll ask for a motion.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Mr.

President, the recommendation of the public services committee is to approve on second reading and I so move.

Second.

Motion by Dr.

Aldrich, second by Dr.

Emmons.

Discussion on council.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

The recommendation for uh the committee next week is to approve on uh unanimously.

Next item, please.

Number 10, ordinance, second reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, establishing the zoning classification of AR agricultural residential for land annexed to the city of Cheyenne, located south of Charles Street, east of Wenandi Avenue, and west of McKinley Avenue.

When we move to annex a piece of property, we try to uh set uh create the zoning for it as it was in the county.

In this case, it was agricultural, so that's what this ordinance does is create an agricultural zone for the uh item we just just heard.

Is there anyone online that would like to discuss this?

Okay, we do have.

I'm sorry, Jennifer.

Mr.

Miller, you can go ahead.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

All right, um, this is agenda item number 10.

Yes.

Um I'm placing a uh members of the council, Charles Miller for the record.

I'm placing a formal.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you, sir.

I'm placing a formal constructive notice of legal invalidity onto the administrative record regarding agenda item number 10.

This ordinance attempts to assign an agricultural residential zoning classification to the 2.69 acre parcel on Charles Street.

Is that is that correct?

2.69 acres?

Sir, Mr.

President, Councilman Wolf.

Uh point of uh order.

Would you guys stop my time, please?

Um you want to.

Um I'm wondering what I would have just done.

Mr.

Miller, Mr.

Miller, we have the floor.

Mr.

President, there is no job in the city job descriptions or anywhere else that describes a grand overseer of our planning and zoning undertakings.

Planning and zoning is a site-specific issue.

We, if unless Mr.

Miller actually owns the land, or is within the zone of interest in which he would be entitled to receive notice?

His comments, he has no standing to make these comments.

Point of order.

President Seagrave.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Uh this is a citizen, and every citizen in our community has a right to make a comment on any item on our agenda.

That's why we have open meeting laws.

All right.

Mr.

Miller, we're we're talking about zoning for a 2.69 piece parcel, zoning at agriculture, which it currently is in the county.

Please hold your comments to that.

I'm sorry.

Is there uh is Mr.

Wolf able to um explain a little bit more about uh where he was coming from?

He is an attorney, so I'm wondering if there was actually something of substance that was going to be uh shared there.

Is it could he we can we will ask him, but your clock is running.

Mr.

Wolf, would you like to answer his question?

Well, if you look at the cases that have interpreted who can challenge zoning decisions, it's limited to the people who are directly impacted by them, either the the neighboring residents or the landowner themselves.

Particularly, we have heard from Mr.

Miller when he has questioned the notice uh provisions in and a zoning, and he has absolutely no standard to do that.

I realize, Councilwoman Aldridge, that this is a public hearing, and we take public comment and this is a public meeting.

But the when comments are directed to issues about which Mr.

Miller has no involvement at all.

We should not permit them.

Dr.

Aldridge.

If we were to follow that logic, no one in this room tonight that wants to speak about data center annexation would be allowed to speak.

So I I think that we need to stop at this point and allow the citizens to speak.

Thank you.

Mr.

Miller, did we answer your question?

Uh yes, I was just wondering uh uh through you um uh to Mr.

Wolf.

I was wondering uh what gave you the um the idea that that I have no standing uh in any particular um input here.

I'm just wondering.

Mr.

Wolf.

I don't have the other word.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Miller, go ahead and finish your comments.

You have 40 seconds.

Oh, oh 40 40 seconds.

Okay.

Um, okay, let me see here.

All right, sorry about that.

Let's see.

Um I'm just I'm gonna have to go ahead and uh just reconcile my my notes here, but uh I will uh go ahead and and move uh move on to the next.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Miller.

Anyone else online?

No further comments online.

We'll close that.

Anyone in the room that would like to talk about this uh zoning of agriculture for the uh proposed annexation?

A zoning agricultural designation.

Seeing none, uh, we'll close public comment and Dr.

Aldrich.

Could we have a motion, please?

Mr.

President, the recommendation of the public services committee is to approve on second reading.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Dr.

Emmons, discussion uh on the dice.

Discussion.

Anyone?

Hearing none.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Uh passes unanimously.

Next item, please.

Number 11, ordinance, second reading, annexing to the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, land northwest of the intersection of Clear Creek Parkway and Gannett Peak Drive.

This is a um uh proposed annexation to expand the uh Swan Ranch Business Park.

Um it's proposed by the owner.

Um, anyone online, Jennifer, that would like to discuss this.

Go ahead.

Mr.

Miller, you can go ahead and go ahead, Mr.

Miller.

We can hear you.

Mr.

Miller.

Uh can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

All righty.

Um, so this is agenda item number 11.

Is that correct?

That's correct, sir.

Um, Charles Miller for the record.

Um this is in regards to Clear Creek Parkway and Gannett Peak Drive.

Is that correct?

That's correct, sir.

Okay, so um I'm gonna try to get through this one um all the way.

Uh, I'm placing a formal constructive notice of jurisdictional arbitrage and statutory evasion onto the permanent administrative record regarding agenda item number eleven, the annexation of land northwest of Clear Creek Parkway and Gannett Peak Drive.

On June 15th, the developers agent, Mark Christensen of AVI Professional Corporation admitted the true purpose of this annexation to the public services committee, stating verbatim, this is an owner-initiated application for annexation.

Uh this will be an expansion of the Swan Ranch Business Park.

So this annexation is requested to accompany the platning action and the zoning action for future industrial type development.

Expanding this business park boundary is a calculated maneuver to exploit a state loophole.

During the June 1st Planning Commission hearing regarding this exact Swan Ranch expansion, I had asked the administration a direct question.

Your own planning director, Charles Broom Bloom confessed the regulatory evasion on the live microphone, stating verbatim regarding industrial siting division.

This is with in an existing business park, so it is exempt from the industrial siding committee processes.

By approving this annexation, you are intentionally expanding a geographic loophole designed to bypass the Wyoming Industrial Sighting Act.

You're actively shielding industrial developers from state level scrutiny and illegally stripping Laramie County of the state-mandated socioeconomic impact fees required to mitigate the massive infrastructure strain these developments create.

I demand a no vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Miller.

Anyone else online, Jennifer?

No one, no one else online.

We'll close that.

Anyone in the room that would like to discuss this proposed uh annexation of the of the uh for the Swan Ranch Business Park?

Discussion?

Hearing none, we'll close public comment and we're on second reading.

Could we have a motion, Dr.

Olbridge?

Uh Mr.

President, the recommendation of the public services committee is to approve on second reading and I so move second.

Second by Dr.

Emmons.

Discussion?

Uh Dr.

Emmons.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I just wanted to point something out for um Mr.

Miller, especially, but for anyone else who's interested, today I called the industrial siding commission because I was unclear on several things about industrial siding.

And I asked specifically, do data centers have to go through the industrial siding area or act.

And what they told me is that when there is an expansion of an existing business park such as this, the industrial siding act um going through the whole council process is waived.

So I just want to be let uh Charles Miller know that there wasn't a violation.

This was done appropriately for the industrial siding folks.

So I just want to share that.

Thank you, Dr.

Inns.

Uh, Councilman Wolf.

Uh, thank you, Mr.

President.

Through you, uh, just to put a finer point on that.

Um, Mr.

Miller's comments are off base completely.

The legislature created this scheme.

So this is a legislative action over which we have no authority to disagree with.

We're following through with the processes and the powers that are uh delegated to the council by the legislature.

Um, so we're actually following the law, contrary to Mr.

Miller's uh objections.

Thank you, Councilman Wolf.

Further discussion.

Discussion.

Hearing none, all in favor of the annexation.

Signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

No.

Um we have approval of the ordinance on second reading with Councilman Moody voting no.

Next item, please.

Number 12 ordinance, second reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, establishing the zoning classification of LI Light Industrial for land annexed to the city of Cheyenne, located northwest of the intersection of Clear Creek Parkway and Gannett Peak Drive.

As we just approved on second reading the annexation of this property for Swan Ranch Business Park, we now need to zone it.

This uh ordinance creates a zone classification of LI Light Industrial.

We'll go online, Jennifer.

Anyone want to talk about this zoning classification?

Go ahead.

Is there anyone there, Jennifer?

Yes, I'm sorry, Mr.

President.

It's user error tonight.

Mr.

Miller, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Mr.

Miller.

I'm sorry, can I get you to confirm the agenda item that we're on?

Uh item 12 light industrial zoning.

All right.

Here we are.

Okay.

Um I'm placing uh council members, Charles Miller for the record.

Um I am placing a formal constructive notice of premeditated regulatory arbitrage onto the permanent administrative record regarding agenda item 12.

You are attempting to assign light industrial zoning to this 26.29 acre parcel.

Is that correct?

It's that yes, that's correct.

Um, but this ordinance is a procedural charade.

You have no intention of leaving this land as light industrial on June 15th.

Your own planner, Connor White, confessed exactly how the city uses these assigned zonings as a mechanical stepping stone to accommodate data center developers.

He stated verbatim, it's a backup zone.

Why staff is recommending that be zoned this way to begin with when we know that they want to build the data center?

The reason is if council annexes it and then doesn't zone it to BP, it has a city zone, it has a backup zone.

Otherwise, we're annexing a parcel, not giving it a zone.

Well, then what do we do with no zone district?

They basically have no regulation, so we have to have that backup zone.

That was verbatim.

Uh, the entire purpose of establishing this temporary backup zone is to secure municipal jurisdiction.

So you can immediately flip the parcel to business park zoning.

And why business park?

Planning director Charles Bloom confessed the true motive on June 1st, stating verbatim regarding industrial sighting division.

Uh sighting uh with an existing business park, so it is exempt from the industry industrial siding committee process by voting yes on agenda item 12.

You are knowingly constructing the administrative bridge required to grant corporate developers immunity from the Wyoming Industrial Sighting Act.

You are participating in a premeditated scheme to defraud Laramie County of socioeconomic impact fees.

I demand a no vote.

Thank you.

Anyone else online?

Anyone online?

Anyone online, Jennifer?

Okay, we'll close the online discussion.

Anyone in the room that would like to talk about this light industrial zoning?

Anyone?

See none, we'll close public comment and we'll ask for a motion.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Mr.

President, the recommendation of the public services the committee is to approve on second reading, and I so move.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Councilman Wolf.

Discussion.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Mr.

Moody is a no.

The recommendation is to approve on second reading.

Next item, please.

Number 13 ordinance, second reading.

Amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, changing the zoning classification for land located north and south of West Wallach Road and west of Interstate 25 from LI Light Industrial, C B Community Business and PUD Plan Unit Development to BP Business Park.

This ordinance takes several different zoning classifications and moves them all into a business park uh classification.

That's the request we've received.

Is there anyone online that would like to discuss this?

Mr.

Miller, you can go ahead.

Mr.

Miller.

Members of the council, Charles Miller, for the record.

Um this is item 13.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Um, West Wallach Road rezoning?

Yes, sir.

Um, okay.

I'm uh I'm placing a formal constructive notice of egregious financial conflict of interest and confessed jurisdictional arbitrage onto the permanent administrative record regarding the West Wallach Road rezoning to business park.

First, this proceeding is irreparably tainted by a financial conflict of interest.

The official agent actively lobbying this body for the West Wallach Road rezoning is Mark Christensen of AVI Professional Corporation.

Yet, the finance committee earlier in the month utilized taxpayer dollars to award a 252,522.90 97 cents contract directly to AVI to conduct the Wallach Road extension feasibility study.

You are funneling a quarter of a million dollars in public funds to the developer's agent to study the exact same road where they're actively lobbying you for an industrial rezoning.

This violates the public trust and destroys the impartiality of this tribunal.

Second, this rezoning is a confessed act of bad faith gerrymandering designed to evade again the Wyoming Industrial Sighting Act.

During the June 1st Planning Commission hearing, the applicant's agent Mark Christensen explicitly admitted they are artificially manipulating the map to hit the 320 acre minimum required for this BP zone, stating verbatim.

We have strung together some other properties that have already been platted in that BP zone.

Why did they string these properties together?

Your own planning director, Charles Bloom, confessed the motive on the record stating this is with an existing business park, so it is exempt from the industrial siding committee processes.

You're using a compromised taxpayer funded lobbying agent to rubber stamp a gerrymandered zoning map, specifically to help corporate developers evade state-mandated socioeconomic impact fees.

I demand a no vote to halt the systemic arbitrage.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Miller.

Is there any uh Jennifer?

Go ahead.

Mr.

Christianson, you can go ahead.

Uh Councilman Seagrave, can you hear me?

Yes, sir, we can.

Uh just for the record, Councilman Seagrave just wanted to point out that the um Wallach Road rezoning that we're looking at currently is on the west side of I-25, and the extents of the Wallach and Parsley uh contract are on the east side of I-25.

So just wanted to clear that up for the council.

And then also uh about stringing properties together.

This is a owner initiated zone change, so an owner is allowed, um, no matter how many different properties they own, allowed to initiate a zone change uh or request a zone change at behalf of the council.

So just wanted to clear those things up.

Thank you.

Mr.

Christensen, can you identify the uh your employer who you're representing here?

Yes, sir.

Uh Mark Christensen with ABI PC at 1103 Old Town Lane.

Thank you, sir.

I should have done that at the beginning.

I apologize.

Apologies on my part.

Jennifer, anyone else online?

All right.

The online is uh closed.

Anyone in the in the room that would like to talk about this uh zoning issue.

Anyone seeing no one, we'll close public comment.

Uh Dr.

Aldrich, could we have a motion, please?

Mr.

President, the recommendation of the public services committee is to approve on second reading, and I so move.

Is there a second?

Second by Dr.

Emmons.

Discussion?

From the council.

Discussion.

Hearing none.

All in favor on second reading, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

Uh it's a unanimous unanimous vote.

Uh, we'll move on to the next item, please.

Number 14 ordinance, second reading annexing to the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, land east of South Greeley Highway and south of the sweet grass subdivision.

This is a owner uh initiated um annexation of about 3,500 acres west or correction, east of the bison business park.

Um located off of South Crew Lee Highway, north of Chalk Bluff Road.

Um, this is on second reading.

Jennifer, we'll go online first.

Go ahead.

Mr.

Miller, you can go ahead.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you, sir.

All right.

Give me just a second here.

This is number 14.

Yes, sir.

Uh let's see here.

Okay, uh, Charles Miller for the record.

Um, I am placing a formal constructive notice of arbitrary governance and fiduciary abandonment onto the permanent record regarding agenda item number 14, the 3,460 acre annexation.

Is that the amount of acres and Scott?

Yes, sir, close enough.

Okay.

Um, you cannot legally satisfy Wyoming Statute 151402's requirement that this annexation is logical and feasible.

Microsoft's own agent, Rachel Irving confessed to this city, given the early stage of this effort, Microsoft has not yet advanced detailed design for this for the campus.

You are granting municipal jurisdiction to a 3,500 acre ghost project.

Um you are advancing this blank check while ignoring catastrophic environmental warnings.

As resident Richard Lyell warned this council regarding local water supplies, the aquifer under the uh in the unincorporated area is drying up.

I have a friend who uh has out here, he has a well that goes down 600 feet.

He now has uh he has to now, because that's drying up, spend 120,000 to replace it with a well going down 900 feet.

Quote, um, you are annexing annexing an unquantifiable utility burden onto a breaking ecosystem.

Why are you rushing an X annexation without a design?

Councilman Larry Wolf explicitly warned the committee.

We don't know, and we shouldn't be arrogant enough to think that we know what this is going to look like 10 years from now.

He asked you to delay this until Microsoft signed a $50 million community benefits agreement.

Instead, you're rushing this to facilitate a massive land sale for the political elite.

As Councilman Wolf stated verbatim on the record, what is the benefit to the city if we annex now?

Unless they're going to do some substance some substantial things for the residents.

Making Senator Cynthia Lumis a lot richer is not a compelling reason.

Quote, you are trading our water and our infrastructure for an elite payout.

I demand a no vote on item 14 until a binding $50 million community benefits agreement is secured.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Miller.

Anyone else online?

No one else online.

We'll close the online section and we'll bring it into the room.

Um, we'll uh ask folks to come up.

Uh we'll limit our time to three minutes each.

Uh, when you come up, please uh identify yourself.

And we'll start with Mr.

White, sir.

Uh Mr.

President Michael White.

Um I've been gone for a while, but I know that uh AVI is heading this project, and I appreciate that.

But I think I need to take a lesson from our Wyoming legislators that um when we get as many people as we have in the room as I've attended many committee meetings for the state of Wyoming, when they're subjects to not knowing all the information, the ability for the legislators to make cognitive decisions, the legislators and appoint a bipartisan individual group to assess the issue of annexation with regards to what we know will be built here.

So we don't seem to do that.

We seem to be the experts in the United States.

Annexation, and I appreciate Brad being here, but I don't see the owner of the property here.

That land acquisition has not been finalized where Microsoft is actually buying the property.

Uh, with respect to the Loomis family.

I've seen many times where this governing body has wanted the property owner to be at the meeting, and I don't see anybody from the Loomis branch or their holding company.

So I caution the council, we seem to be the people behind the podium, the people, and I'll take a quote from Governor Gordon.

We're ride the where he says we need to get more information.

And Bradmonds, we know is trying to give us all the information that we need.

But I think we need to take a pause in all annexations right now.

Especially when we cannot address what this project is actually for, because we can only talk about annexation.

And the last point I'd like to make is that the last time we redid Plan Cheyenne was 2012.

That's 14 years that we have not redone that plan Cheyenne.

So in my regards, how can we assess what we're talking about tonight without redoing all the rules when we should be specific to those rules to say exactly what this project is?

So I say, oh, no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Uh Council President, Council members Brad Emmons, ABI agent for the applicant and owners and the and for Microsoft, the future developer.

Um this is a uh owner-initiated annexation uh that we brought before you uh we believe it meets the creditory require statutory requirements for annexation and here to answer any questions that the council might have of me.

Any questions for the owner's representative while he's here?

Councilman Labor.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, I don't have a map here in front of me.

Uh Brad.

Um I correct that uh the uh one can I see this?

It's uh yes.

Doesn't quite uh answer my question.

Does the uh existing uh sweet grass uh property and its its zoning and uh acceptance of uh annexation?

It is it a butting uh this uh proposed annexation, Mr.

Emmons?

Uh Mr.

President's view, Councilman Labor.

Yes, there are portions of the existing sweetgrass uh subdivision that has already been annexed that join this on the northwest corner.

Um so I would estimate 20%, 25%, touch the existing sweet grass residential annexation.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

Councilman Wolf.

Uh, thank you, Mr.

President, through you.

Um Mr.

Emmons, were you involved in the sweet grass uh annexation that was done in 2017-2018?

Mr.

Emmons?

Mr.

President, you know I was not.

Thank you, Ms.

President.

Any further questions for the owner's representative?

Okay, thank you very much.

Yes, ma'am.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Rachel Irwing, I'm a land development manager, uh, with Microsoft.

Our address is one Microsoft Way, Redmond Washington.

Um, thank you again for your time and consideration.

You've given the Highlands project over the past several weeks.

I understand why a project of this scale rages raises questions from oversight to long-term impacts, and I want to acknowledge that those are important conversations to have.

At its core, annexation is about planning.

It is one step in a much longer process that allows the city to remain actively involved in how this area is planned, reviewed, and ultimately developed over time.

One question we've heard throughout this process is if full full build out may occur over many years.

Why is annexation being considered now?

And the answer to that question is that annexation is about planning and not immediate construction.

Projects of this scale acquire long-term coordination or infrastructure.

Annexation allows the city of Cheyenne to participate in that planning early rather than waiting until development is imminent.

It ensures future growth can be evaluated and coordinated under the city's planning framework, standards, and oversight processes.

It is also important to recognize that annexation is not the final approval for development.

Future phases will continue to be subject to engineering, planning, utility, environmental, and permitting review as they advance.

Those reviews will occur at appropriate stages of design and development.

In short, annexation today is not about accelerating construction.

It's about allowing the city and Microsoft to plan responsibly and collaboratively.

From our side, we're trying to be as transparent as possible about where this project stands today.

We do not yet own the land, and we are still in the early process of planning.

That's exactly why we've been engaging early through neighborhood and public meetings.

Coordination with city staff and bringing in subject matter experts to help answer any questions as they arise.

We also plan to continue that engagement, including additional community open houses to hear questions and concerns as this project evolves.

Ultimately, this is one step in a much longer process with additional opportunities for coordination and review as more information becomes available.

We appreciate the coordination the city has to date, and we'll continue working through this as the next phases of this project advance.

Thank you for your time and our team is here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Mr.

Councilman Wolf.

Ms.

Irving, don't go.

Councilman Wolf.

Thank you, Mr.

President, through you.

Ms.

Irving, I'm going to make a motion uh to this council to postpone this or recommit it to committee for a period that we can decide by suggested four months so that we can uh negotiate an annexation agreement, community benefits agreement with Microsoft.

What's your view on that?

Council President, through you, uh Mr.

Wolf.

Um Microsoft is willing to work with the city in in whatever way is beneficial for both the city and this project.

So we're open to discussions.

Mr.

Councilman Wolf.

President, follow-up, please.

Thank you.

Uh, through you.

Um if we took four months to do that, does that create any particular problems for Microsoft?

Council President through you, uh Councilman Wolf.

Um, Microsoft would like to progress the project as soon as possible in order to begin our engineering review, our uh development plan, schedules, and early design and planning, especially for off-site infrastructure.

So we can begin working with this city as soon as possible.

Follow-up, Mr.

Councilman Wolf.

Thank you.

Um you read the sweet grass annexation agreement.

Council President, through you, Councilman Wolf.

Um, I have read a portion.

I have not completely reviewed the sweetgrass annexation agreement.

Councilman Wolf.

Um, so you understand that that was entered into with the same landowners, uh, and prior to a decision on annexation, and that agreement actually encompassed uh agreements on annexation and zoning.

Council President, through you, Mr.

Wolf, yes, I understand.

Okay.

And and you also understand that that uh what my motion actually is Mr.

Labourne's motion and mine, um, is at this stage just a suggestion to the mayor.

We aren't trying to tell the mayor and his staff and Mr.

Bloom what to do, what should be in the in the document.

Um we are just saying for a short period of time that uh we'd like to give the parties the opportunity to have that full discussion.

Is that you understand that part of it?

Council President through you too uh Councilman Wolf, yes, I understand.

Uh, Mr.

President, point of order.

I don't believe we are on the discussion of the amendment.

We should not be, but we have a proposed uh developer here, so I wanted to give council an opportunity to ask questions.

Anything else, Mr.

Wolf?

Uh no, uh, thank you, Mr.

President.

Councilman Moody.

Thank you, Mr.

President, through you, thank you, Ms.

Irving, just one question.

I understand timelines change.

Do you does Microsoft have a proposed timeline for this whole project from start date to end date?

Council President, through you, uh Mr.

Moody, at this time we don't have a start and finish date.

However, we would like to begin working on the feasibility reviews of this project once we are annexed and rezoned and to acquire the property so we can begin coordination with the city.

Um, however, we do not have a construction complete date as we have not advanced detailed design.

So I have thank you, Mr.

President.

Dr.

Rumens.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, how unusual is it or how usual is it?

Typical is it for you to have a complete timeline at this point in the uh development process.

Mr.

Reed.

Council President, through you, Ms.

Emmons.

At this point, at this stage, it is not very common for a developer to have a complete detailed design, especially as we had just, we haven't even acquired the property yet.

So there hasn't been time between approaching the landowner, working through the acquisition process, completing a site due diligence and review, and also completing detail design, which can take, you know, depending on the project, months to a year.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Um Director Bloom.

Chair members of Council, Charles Winplan, Development Director.

I just want to provide a little bit of detail on the annexation agreement since there has been plenty of discussion about it.

Sweetgrass did enter into an annexation agreement back in 2018.

It was approved in April of 2018.

That agreement has been provided to their uh to their consultant and also been forward on to them.

Um that agreement was primarily set up to number one, identify the payment of park fees and the timing of park fees.

In our unified development code, it says that when you plant a property, you are able to identify an alternative payment plan.

And that was one of the fundamental items of this development.

Secondly, there's another element regarding infrastructure.

Essentially, there was a what we would call a subdivision standard waiver today, which sometimes is dealt with administratively, where you can do alternative roadway patterns and alternative roadway construction.

So what they did there is they wanted to preserve the prairie style development, keep that name sweetgrass, and with that um development, they looked for a more rule section.

So that was memorialized in that agreement, and that was um a subdivision standards alternative that they had done.

Secondly, this is a large development that's phased over many decades.

With that development, they wanted to identify, and the traffic study showed that over time there was going to be a need for transportation improvements, traffic signalization, other items on the perimeter.

So it identified an account that we have and we continue to maintain that charges homes when they are constructed, an infrastructure fee, which we hold on to and we invest to utilize for infrastructure improvements in the future, like signalization of major roadways when it meets warms.

So that was the primary impetus for the development agreement regarding sweet grass.

In that development, they also pledged, and it's our understanding this was a pledge of their development that they would do a planned unit development, and they um which is essentially a builder owned zone district, and they personally committed to items on their own, which talked about uh sustainability, lower water use, those types of items, um, and also um dedication of parkland in that area, which we had discussion on just recently.

Um all of that was um mostly to satisfy what was in our unified development code.

Since the annexation agreement was put together, we have had one major change in our development regulations regarding the payment of park impact fees.

Um at that time they were due a subdivision, and you would have to, as a developer, pay a park impact fee before you had even sold one lot, before you had even financed um road construction to get all that up to snuff.

Um, just recently we amended our unified development code to to modify the timeline of that fee.

So that fee now occurs that building permit, which is after the development has been has been developed and that building permit is ready to be pulled.

Thank you, Mr.

Welcome.

Yes, sir.

Good evening, Mr.

President, members of the council, city staff, and the public.

My name's Lucas Downey and I serve as a community affairs manager at Microsoft.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you again tonight.

It wouldn't be a Monday this summer if we weren't all here together spending this time.

I want to start by briefly grounding us in something I've shared before.

Microsoft's community first commitments.

These are five commitments we make in every community where we build and operate.

I know I've stated these in my previous public comment, but I think it's important for the public to hear these and also have these on the public record so we can hold ourselves accountable to them.

We pay our own way so our data centers do not increase electric electricity costs for our residents.

We work to minimize our water use and replenish more than we use.

We create jobs for local residents, we contribute to the local tax base, and we invest in communities through programs like workforce development, AI training, and support for local nonprofits.

These are not just statements, they guide how we show up and how we operate.

Just as important, we listen.

On a previous project here in Cheyenne, we heard clearly from the community that Burlington Trail Road was in rough shape and needed attention.

We took that feedback, worked with partners, and made improvements to the road.

In addition to that project, we've added a section of the greenway in the same area to further enable and encourage access to the east for the community.

That input mattered and it directly shaped the outcome.

That same approach continues today.

We are here, we're listening, and we're taking notes.

Microsoft has been a part of the Cheyenne community for more than 14 years.

We're here tonight as a partner, and we intend to continue showing up in that way moving forward.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Downing.

Further discussion.

Yes, sir.

Jimmy Chirwell, a candidate for World One.

I know this has been a hot topic.

Uh through my campaigning door knocking, I'd say probably 90% of the residents, at least in my area, are just concerned.

So transparency.

I told them they could go to the meeting that they recently had over at Triple MC.

They didn't know about it.

So you've got to get out, you've got to do your research on that.

I'm not against business, I'm not against the small business, bringing in uh more tech jobs on that.

Uh, but through you, President Seagraves, uh Mr.

Wolf, I think that um that would be a good compromise, a postponement on it.

Something of this grand size is gonna impact those residents out there at the the um sawgrass area and just the whole city in in general.

Uh, environmental impact.

We I know they're gonna do their plan study and whatnot, but I would recommend as a compromise to just do a postponement on this so that we could go and and try to go negotiate some other items with it.

I would be myself, I would be more inclined to this major project and expansion that if they you know threw out on the table that they're gonna buy the YMCA and turn that into the a rec center.

You know, the price has gone way down, or make a huge donation for a triple A ballpark, something that will positively impact the uh the community here.

Not just a small donation to the girls and boys club or a couple of grants that are specifically set at triple C triple, you know, uh L triple C for just technical uh, you know, classes of that.

Why not the welding?

Why not electrician?

Something else like that.

But I would I would highly recommend this governing body to do a postponement, put something else out on the table that we can negotiate with them because I mean, like it or not, it's gonna happen.

I know Miss Loomis.

Um, you know, she has a right to go and ask for the annexation and then for the uh zoning change.

But uh if we could seriously consider that to do a um that postpone, I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Can you turn it on for us, please?

There we go.

Thank you.

Yeah.

My question is, every time you guys answer land, seems like you guys are anti-slaw land all the time.

And that's just for me is a little confusion.

Why?

Why are you guys antize all this land all the time?

Why couldn't that 3500 acres?

I'm just questioning it.

Why didn't somebody else buy that land before it becomes to a city?

You know, somebody that has land that want, you know, animals, cattle, whatever could come off that 3,500 acres.

I don't know.

Did you guys ever Sir?

This is an owner request.

Right.

Can't you ever consider the people that live that sweet sweet grass subdivision that those homes are there?

Every time there's an and size, you got these corporate right away.

Want to put a data center or software, whatever.

Why couldn't you just make it like a uh subdivision for homes?

Why can't you do that?

Because we're getting too many data centers to my Microsoft and China.

How many more do we want in Cheyenne?

You know, there's other things besides that, because you know, that many data centers, the data centers all across the United States.

You know, there's there's a lot of, you know, we use cell phones, everything.

Everybody uses all over, but why so many data centers?

My question is, did you ever consider those people at sweet water subdivision that live there?

Would they like to live next to a uh uh Microsoft business or whatever?

You guys probably live somewhere that you're not living near places like that.

Reason I'm up here because I live on Terry Ranch Road, they got that data center.

I watch it every day, destroying the land, they're uh tearing down the roads and everything.

I don't know exactly how close that data center is gonna be.

The light's gonna be an issue, and I know some I've heard stories about some of those data centers make all kinds of noise.

We don't know that yet till it's done.

But I'm just saying they drill two wells in that well, then more water into the offer.

I spoke this before.

They said they were going to go deeper than that.

What happens that whole thing collapse once they take the water?

You know, it's like a caveat.

What if that collapsed and it drops the whole thing drops in?

Those things we do not know.

Mother nature, the earth, whatever, we don't know what's going to do.

We we plan ahead.

Yes, this is what we want.

But every time I hear antize, I hear these uh Microsoft comes in.

We want to build this, we want to build that.

Why can't we build something else beside that in that area?

You know, at one time I thought there was to be a golf course in that area.

You know, that'd be better.

I'd rather see our golf course that people could play golf and enjoy.

But these data centers in Microsoft, that's my opinion.

Thank you.

Have a good one.

Thank you.

Ms.

Wolf.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the council, and members of the community.

My name is Wendy Volk.

I'm a longtime Southeastern Wyoming resident, a business professional, and someone whose family has deep roots in this region.

I'm not here to oppose growth.

Wyoming has always embraced innovation, entrepreneurship, and opportunity, economic development matters, and our state has a proud history of powering the nation through agriculture, mining, and energy production.

But as we witness a growing wave of industrial development, including business parks, data centers, transmission infrastructure, workforce housing, quarries, and large scale energy projects, I believe we must ask some harder or some broader questions about how we grow and who bears the cost.

We see growing demands on water systems, emergency services, housing, and public infrastructure.

We experience the gradual transformation of open spaces and the rural character that has defined southeastern Wyoming for generations.

Growth itself is not the issue.

The issue is whether we have long a long-term plan and whether growth is paying for its fair share.

Our roads, bridges, intersections, and public services were built primarily to serve existing residents, ranching operations, and local businesses.

They were not necessarily designed to accommodate the demands of multiple large industrial developments occurring simultaneously.

I believe it is reasonable to ask the companies benefiting from this growth to become partners in building the infrastructure they require.

I applied Microsoft on being a great community partner.

But if industrial traffic increases wear on roads and bridges, companies should contribute to their improvements and long-term maintenance.

If growth requires expanded emergency services, water infrastructure, or transportation upgrades, these costs should not fall disproportionately on local taxpayers.

Economic development is strongest when both the benefits and the responsibilities are shared fairly.

And as we make these decisions, I hope we continue to ask a larger question.

What do we want Southeastern Wyoming to look like 20 or 50 years from now?

Once open space is industrialized, it is rarely returned to its original condition.

Once the character of a community changes, it can be difficult to restore.

I am not asking for us to stop progress.

I am asking for us to guide it wisely with transparency, thoughtful planning, and a commitment to ensuring that growth strengthens strengthens our communities rather than placing new burdens upon them.

Wyoming has always prided itself on thinking long term.

I hope we continue to do so because the choices we make today will shape the Wyoming our children and grandchildren inherit, and thank you all for your time.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Heather Madrid, Harmony Meadows.

Um, so I understand that this is an owner-initiated annexation, however, it was just revealed that the property owner was approached, so this is far from organic development.

Um, unlike other record-breaking annexations in the same area with the same property owner, Microsoft has not been required to provide a detailed plan for the development of this property.

The lack of a plan is not a legitimate reason to forego any kind of annexation agreement.

In fact, it is quite the opposite.

It's a reason to wait until Microsoft has some idea of what they're doing here.

Um the owner has the right to sell their property to whoever they want, and Microsoft has the right to purchase this property.

Microsoft then has the right to do whatever they want within their new asset as long as it falls within allowed uses, which is currently LU in the county.

This allows for agricultural housing no less than 10 no less than 10.5 acres per home and very limited home businesses.

That is where their inherent property rights end.

Owning property in this city does not allow anyone to trample on the rights of 70,000 people.

Annexation is not a right, it is a public process that requires certain criteria to be met.

If the criteria is not met, the property is met, excuse me, the property shall be annexed.

At least two of the five have not been met.

The first one being that annexation must protect the health safety and welfare of citizens of Cheyenne.

Without a detailed plan, it is impossible to make that determination.

Even with a detailed plan, how does a project of this magnitude meet that criteria?

What studies have been done?

How much water will they use?

How many backup generators will be necessary?

Will they bring their own power?

Is this why Tallgrass wants to donate 2.9 million dollars to housing?

The second unmet criterion is that it must be a logical and feasible addition to the city.

Notably, police, fire, and EMS services must be reasonably available.

Is this why the city wants to use six penny dollars to relocate the fire station on Fox Farm, where it currently serves the many homes, schools, and families located in South Cheyenne?

Moving services closer to data centers and farther away from residents only serves to further the concerning disproportionate access to services and resources that already exists on the south side of Cheyenne.

How does that protect the health safety and welfare of this city?

Where will the roads to this property be?

How will police and other emergency services get there?

Once again, without a detailed plan, it is impossible to make that determination.

This property is not ready to be annexed, plain and simple.

Microsoft must follow the same rules and laws as everybody else.

The special treatment of multi-billion dollar corporations should anger everyone, even if you do support the unchecked and unregulated data center build-out.

The city is not accountable to corporate timelines, and if Microsoft expects the road to be paved ahead of them at the expense of the health safety and welfare of this community, then they are in fact not good neighbors that they claim to be.

Targeted corporate philanthropy is not a substitute for proper planning and it does not excuse the wealthiest corporations in this world from following the law.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Madrid.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, Nick Adams.

Um, usually now, once I get the information, I have to readjust what I'm going to say.

So I would like, I would propose a delay because it gives people time to read and actually check through Chat GPT.

The very thing we're building for.

So I take a screenshot of, look at the B O P U statement.

And it says BPO B O P U also requires meter installation.

Is the public allowed to have use or the access of that water usage?

Well, according to Chat GPT, it tells us the BOPU collects the data, but not whether the debt the public can see it.

In Wyoming, utility water use records are often treated differently depending on who the customer is.

If you're a retail customer, you're metered, and you're checked now.

However, according to this, whether the public can obtain water use for a specific data center may depend on Wyoming public records law and any confid confidentiality claims made by the company.

I'd like to wait and see how much water Microsoft uses.

I'd like to see the metering.

Has it ever been public?

Answer the question.

Furthermore, this is just the water usage for cooling, not water usage for the energy consumption that tall grass carruso would use.

So the two percent that we're seeing, how accurate is that?

Is that present?

Or future use and its present use according to this.

So I want to delay on this.

I think it would be a very good thing.

So we could go ahead and get on our chat GPT and check what is said and stated and whether or not items are left out and the truth be told.

I don't think that is too much to ask.

These companies leave out things, and I just want to know what's happening.

You know, you if you want to use the water, use it below what the land you've purchased, but don't spread it out on the data for the data center all out on our community, all through that aquifer.

It's not right if we don't know how much water is being used.

It's kind of like looking at a stock.

You can look at the present EPS or you can look at the future earnings of it.

And I want to look at the future of our water usage, and that's just one thing.

I haven't even addressed Black Hills Energy and why they want it so badly.

So please consider delay so we can chat GPT it and look at it and really get the truth.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Yes, I'm Richard Lyle.

I live on the north side of town, and I'm not affiliated with Microsoft or any of those businesses.

But my understanding is if this property is a net, it would be subject to municipal ordinances, including the noise limitation ordinance.

If it is not annexed, it somebody could build either Microsoft or somebody they sell it to, and there would be no limit on how much noise they could have.

And I think it's in the best interest of the health and welfare and safety of the residents that the municipal ordinances, including the noise limit, apply to this property.

As far as the aquifer is concerned, if the property is annexed, it would be they'd be able to have city water and city sewer.

And that I think is contrary to the welfare of the residents, both in the city and outside the city.

And there's also the financial issue.

There's going to be property tax paid when something is built.

And the only guess is it's going to be quite a bit of money.

Um, I went to the uh committee meeting and I suggested that if the uh you know there are quite a few potholes, and I offered to give them a list of potholes that could be filled with this, but there are other other needs too.

As far as city services, Microsoft is going to have their own private police or you know, security people, so it's not gonna take a whole lot of Cheyenne police department uh uh, you know, the uh Cheyenne Police Department could back up if there's a situation, but Microsoft is going to have their own security.

So that's not going to be a uh net expense to the city.

So those are my thoughts on this, and thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Lyle.

Anyone else that would like to speak before we bring it up on the dice?

Anyone else?

Yes, ma'am.

Oh, I better identify yourself.

Okay, my name's Donna Frostow.

Thank you.

Can you bring the microphone up, please?

Please.

There you go.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

There we go.

Okay.

I I'm all in favor for it being postponed too as far as like the water consumption.

Seeing that Amazon even put out a report that 2.5 billion gallons of water were just used in 225 is kind of a big deal.

I don't know why weighting is not allowed, but or why it's such a rush, but just to ease the residents and our health and benefits around it.

Um it's just a big deal.

So I value our water and in a drought, it's kind of rough right now.

So I hope that is considered with everything else.

Thank you, Donna.

Yes, ma'am.

Hi, I'm Penny Hollenbach.

I am not associated with Microsoft.

I'm just a resident here in Laramie County.

Um a couple weeks ago I went to the meeting that they had at the Civic Center.

Um, and we were talking about the gallons of water that Microsoft will use.

Um it's brought to our attention that we used 93 million gallons of water last year, but yet we can handle 2.6 billion gallons a year.

But we're on water restrictions, so how like why are we forced to be on water restrictions, but yet we're giving thousand billions of gallons to Microsoft to build their infrastructures.

Um I think oh, and also I couldn't help but notice that in the newspaper I saw an article that stated that sewer and water prices were going up for Cheyenne residents.

How is that contingent with saying that the residents don't have to pay for increases for the water in the sewers?

That's my question.

Thank you.

Thank you, Penny.

Any other comments in the room?

Any other comments?

Seeing none, we'll bring it up on the dais, and I'll ask for a motion, please.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Mr.

President, the recommendation of the public services committee is to approve on second reading, and I so move second.

Move by Dr.

Aldrich, seconded by Dr.

Emmons.

Discussion on the dice.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Uh President Seagrave, I just I wanted to uh respond to some of the things that have been said tonight.

I know that there was a recommendation or a suggestion that perhaps um Microsoft could uh purchase the old YMCA.

Um because the price on that has dropped and I know that it's being up actually put up for auction.

Um there are a lot of challenges, I think, with that, and in light of a new recreation center being built by the Mori Brown Foundation.

I I don't know that that would be the best investment because it is landlocked and it has a lot of ADA issues as well as a boiler issue with its pool.

Um I did want to point out that um Microsoft's donation, I thought I think one point, uh it's one point something million, one point three million to uh girls and boys club or boys and girls club is fairly substantial.

I don't think that's been uh non- uh a non-starter.

They also um I don't know that people are really aware of this, but donated um uh quite a bit of money for what we call um gutter bins uh through the Frog Creek partners in order to be able to make sure that uh water that's going to Crow Creek is not uh that we're being able to strain a lot of the silets in the trash out of that before it gets to Crow Creek, um, because their commitment is to a um returning more water than what they're using um that's usable, and that's they've been doing that since uh long before this discussion ever came up.

So I think sometimes the things that they've done have have gone uh unnoticed and in the background.

Um I it wanted to also um point out the Lemmus family does have a right to sell their land to whoever they would like to, um, which is it part of the what the land they which is the land we're discussing in annexation tonight.

Um, they've uh done a subdivision, it was suggested that maybe they should do housing.

Well, they have, it's called sweet grass.

Uh they also donated the land that L C C sits on back in the 70s, but probably a lot of people in this audience are too young to remember that or to know that.

Um, and if any of you um are homeowners or own property, you would want to be able to sell your property to the highest bidder as well.

Um, you would not want to um be told by neighbors that you couldn't sell your property to whoever you wanted to sell your property to.

We value personal property rights in the state of Wyoming.

Um we do have lights and noise ordinances in the city.

Um we are able to monitor and meter water when it's uh used, city waters being used, which I believe is much safer than taking it from the aquifer uh through a well system or having to worry about a septic system with leech fields.

Um, and I agree that the benefits and the responsibilities need to be shared.

Uh, there was a question about why we have water restrictions if we're not using our full amount of water.

Uh, we have water restrictions so that we can continue to preserve water and so that we um recognize that it is a valuable resource and asset that we have.

Um, and I think Mr.

Strong could definitely explain, or anyone from BOPU um could explain that we had an increase in water and sewer, and that was not um because of data centers.

Um that's something that is that is reviewed and um looked at um each year, and that was based on the infrastructure that we need to support currently um with the uh reduced amount of water that we're selling.

So um I just I think that uh there's a lot of misinformation out there.

I think there's a lot of uh things that are happening in other cities and other states that um don't necessarily apply here in Cheyenne or in Wyoming, uh, due to some guardrails that have been put in place by our state legislature and by our community, and so um I would encourage you to continue to do your research and do your homework.

But for that reason, I will be a yes vote on uh this tonight.

Councilman Escobille.

Mr.

President, I'm sorry to interrupt, but can I just um let the record show that Mayor Patrick Collins joined the meeting at 7-Eleven?

Thank you.

Welcome, Mayor Collins.

Councilman Escobil.

Is he doing this?

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Do you?

Especially for the people that live in sweet grass.

This annexation is gonna have the largest conservation easement that we have in Laramie County.

Um, definitely the city of Cheyenne.

Uh by having a conservation easement up there on that bluff between uh sweetgrass subdivision and where the closest development Microsoft would do, uh, means that there can't be any development there.

And if I was to live in that type of uh development, uh having a conservation easement uh outside of where I live would probably be one of the greatest things I could hope for.

Uh but uh going forward, uh if if this was sold to a developer, and they were gonna put another thousand homes in that annexation, they would use probably a hundred times more water than what if they use that whole land for data centers.

So, uh that's one of the things I think that is spread out there as far as misinformation is about the water usage.

So uh there are a lot of other things that go in there that would use a lot of water, but I won't really get into that, so I'll support it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Oscarville.

Uh Councilman Wolf.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Through you, uh Mr.

President, just some uh guidance from you would be helpful.

Um, I'd like to make a sort of overarching statement about what we're doing, how significant this is, how this is the largest annexation we've ever done and probably ever will do.

That's the first request I'd have of you.

Second request is: I have some questions I want to ask of Mr.

Bloom to understand the parameters of uh the way he and the planning and zoning deal with annexation.

Um so that's request number two.

Quest number three is I have a motion to ask us to postpone uh this matter for a period of what I've suggested to be four months to allow the mayor and his staff time to negotiate with Microsoft uh an annexation agreement.

It's not directive, it's not mandatory.

They could come back to the council and say we were unable to do that, but we tried, but it would give us an opportunity to deal with the magnitude of this undertaking and all of the fine people that we have seen and heard from.

Remember, we listened to 70 people on Mr.

Moody's motion for a moratorium, and um so I'd like to honor some of that.

So that's number three.

So how would you like to proceed?

Mr.

Wolf, if number three is approved, the delay, there's probably not a need tonight for number one and two.

Exactly.

I agree.

So should we go ahead and address your uh amendment to postpone?

And if it fails, then we'll come back to number one and two.

Um is that work?

Mr.

President, I that's perfect.

I uh would be delighted to do that because I think setting up the discussion for the motion to postpone uh will in fact lay some of the groundwork.

If it's defeated, then we can go forward with the other two issues.

All right, Mr.

Wolf.

Would you like to make a motion to amend?

Um, yes, your honor.

Um, your honor.

Sounds good.

46 years of habits die really hard.

I would one time, just don't bother you with a little story.

Um I was uh at a at a ceremony, I was wearing a long duster.

And they said, okay, Mr.

Wolf, would you make some remarks?

Uh and I stood up, and what did I do?

The first thing I do, I buttoned the coat on the duster, as I would do in a suit in the courtroom.

Um thank you.

Um, for members of the audience, uh, I have some extra copies of this motion if you'd like to see it.

Uh I've provided it already, uh, Mr.

President, to the members of the council and um to I think the clerk has a copy of it.

Um, but if um people want to come up and get it or we want to distribute it, you're all right here.

Um, this motion uh anybody uh who would like copy.

I got there about 15 or so there.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

President, um, this motion is very simple.

Um, it it looks a little complicated because it has two and a half pages on it, but the motion itself is a very simple one.

It just says that we would move to postpone or recommit um to committee, which is what we've done, if you recall in two recent cases, one involving the urban farmer, one involving um the uh proposed Cox Ranch annexation.

Um, and um I suggested November 26 the first meeting in November, which is November 9th, and for the purpose of allowing the mayor and the staff to negotiate uh a comprehensive what I've called annexation mutually beneficial partnership agreement between the city and Microsoft.

So Mr.

President, that's the motion.

I can talk about the suggested contents if you wish, you have them all in front of you.

But again, these are all just a suggestion from that that I've drafted after thinking about this, talking to some folks about it.

Um, and obviously none of it is is directly binding on what the mayor and his staff would do.

Okay, we have a motion by councilman Wolf.

Uh, point of parliamentary procedure.

What's what exactly is the motion?

Um I'm going to address that his motion as I understand it, and correct me, Mr.

Wolf.

Um your motion is to postpone or recommit the committee until the first council meeting in November of 2026, which happens to be November 9th, which allows the mayor and staff time to negotiate a comprehensive annexation beneficial partnership agreement.

Is that correct?

That's correct, Ms.

President.

And do we have a second?

Second.

We have a motion by Councilman Wolf.

Second by Councilman Labourne.

When we have a motion to amend, we go back out and for discussion before we bring it back up on the dies.

So I will start online.

Do we have anyone online that wants to discuss the motion to amend?

That's what we're here to discuss tonight now.

The motion to amend.

Looks like we do have someone.

Uh Jennifer.

Mr.

Miller, you can go ahead.

Mr.

Miller.

Can you hear me?

Mr.

Miller.

Yes, can you hear me?

We can now.

Go ahead.

All righty.

Um, okay.

This uh my name is Charles Miller.

Uh mayor, members of the council.

Um I'm placing a formal constructive notice of fiduciary illusion and bad faith negotiation onto the permanent administrative record regarding the motion to postpone this annexation for four months.

Councilman Wolf has just proposed a delay to negotiate the $50 million community benefits agreement.

Um that was demanded.

But the live transcript proves this motion is a political charade designed to pacify this room without securing a single dollar for the taxpayers.

Councilman Wolf explicitly confessed to the Microsoft representative that this delay is toothless, stating verbatim.

At this stage, just a suggestion to the mayor.

We aren't trying to tell the mayor and his staff and Mr.

Bloom what to do.

He further admitted the premeditated loophole to this governing body, stating verbatim it's not directive, it's not mandatory.

They would come back to the council and say, we were unable to do that, but we tried.

A suggestion is not a statute.

We tried, is not a fiduciary standard.

Microsoft's agent responded only that they are open to discussion.

Discussions behind closed doors are unacceptable when 18% of this city's landmass and the entirety of our aquifer are at stake.

You cannot legally pause a quasi-du-judicial proceeding simply to exhaust public opposition.

I demand that this motion be amended right now.

The four-month postponement must explicitly mandate that a binding $50 million escrow and community benefits agreement is a strict legal prerequisite to the third reading of this annexation.

If you refuse to make it mandatory, this delay is a documented fraud.

I yield my time.

Anyone else online, Jennifer?

Okay, no one else online.

We'll close that and we'll come to the room.

Yes, ma'am.

Good evening, City Council.

My name is Marin Callis, candidate for Ward 1.

I would like to um support the proposed um postponement of the annexation of 3,500 acres of land.

Um, so that way Shine and Microsoft can come to a better deal so they can be in a mutually prosperous partnership.

Um with land acquisition of this scale and for the purposes of a data center, um, I think the city should be negotiating for more in exchange for our land resources and workforce rather than have community benefits like housing um be something that we hope will be donated to us, um, or uh something that sweetens the deal in an effort to assuage public disapproval.

I think we should be negotiating um community benefits into our long-term prosperity partnership with Microsoft from the start, and that means at annexation.

Um this is not your average annexation.

This is exceptional, and it should be treated as such.

The unimaginable wealth of Microsoft renders it immune to extortion or bribery.

To argue that annexation in exchange for mutual prosperity is a slippery slope is also a fallacy.

Just because we ask more from a trillion dollar tech giant in exchange for a massive quantity of land and infrastructure does not will ask the same of a request.

Um, Governor Gordon in his executive order stated that partnership with municipalities is one way that data center developers can demonstrate their.

So there's no need to rush because Microsoft is committed to Cheyenne, and this is this is the time for negotiation is that annexation.

There's a huge pot of money on the table.

We have a really good hand, and we're playing too small.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Ms.

Madrid.

Heather Madrid, Harmony Meadows.

I no shock, support this postponement.

I do understand where Mr.

Miller is coming from on one hand, but at the same time, I think that first of all, I didn't hear anybody demand that we need to have this $50 million agreement before this is postponed.

And I think if that was a demand, then we probably wouldn't get one more extra day.

Um there needs to be time to negotiate instead of making demands right up front.

I agree with everything that was just said.

I really truly believe that these data center companies need us more than we need them.

And we have, I mean, I'm not I'm not opposed to data centers.

I'm not opposed to development.

I am opposed to having our rights kind of systematically picked off one by one by constantly updating the UDC and the land use map and all of these, you know, that's it's just seems really convenient to me to have those things happening and then to come, you know, to the podium day of annexation and say, well, we're following the UDC, we're following the land use map, but it's like of course you are after you spent the last however many years amending it to fit this agenda.

Um I I don't think that postponing this annexation harms a single person, and that includes Microsoft, and it would be very helpful for public trust, which has at this point eroded almost, in my opinion, beyond repair, and this would do a lot for that.

So I appreciate this motion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Russian.

Good evening, council members.

My name is Dante Rushton, Director of Real Estate and Property Management Shine Leads.

I reject the postponement.

Uh Shine Leads, we have the benefit of partnering with the city and the county to represent both on economic development fronts, and we work with Microsoft to plan and build out infrastructure and they do pay their way on every bit of every piece they require.

And so delaying does not help anything with this annexation request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further discussion in the room.

Further discussion.

All right.

Uh we'll start over here.

Okay, McAdams.

Um, thank you.

Again, I'm kind of looking this and thinking the reversal.

You keep talking about owner initiated.

Owner initiated, that's your right.

I'd like to put a reversal on this.

And if we if these items are owner-initiated, what about people who don't want to come into the city?

Their rights have been kind of abused by this council.

Just saying.

So owner-initiated is out of the question for me.

So I really would like to delay this.

So people can really think about these items.

The city, the county, commissioners, those people who might be elected.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Hello, council.

My name is Gregory Barrow.

And I am for postponing this until some more research is done on it.

This whole data center thing going across the country.

Seems like there's no restrictions.

There's no rules.

It's it's I mean, besides the you know, city county uh state laws that might exist might exist.

Uh we could do a lot more research on this and really to ensure that it is the best deal for the residents and for the company.

I'm not against development.

Um, but I think that there's there's other things to consider that we just don't know yet.

And I spoke at one of the other meetings about this that, you know, it seems like we're just rushing into this and and not really knowing uh what these huge data centers, this isn't just a little data center either.

This thing is massive uh thing.

So it's gonna change lives, it's gonna change Cheyenne, but um something I haven't heard brought up tonight, besides these uh temperature variations and the heat that comes off of these things, uh the the stacks that have fire constantly coming out of them.

Um, but I know there is a water shortage, and whether we have the billion gallons or whatever, that I'm still not convinced that we have enough water to uh for all the residents and the other things that we need to do and for the data centers, the huge data centers.

So uh one of the things I wanted to propose was I think the residents might feel a little bit better, especially the ones that are within five miles of this thing, is um so like a shared ownership, like a partnership in it somehow.

I don't know how that would look.

Um, but if people have a stake in it, uh it it may be accepted more and uh embraced more from a resident standpoint.

Just wanted to throw that out there, but uh I'm I'm for delaying this and and studying some more.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, ma'am.

Hi, I'm Elizabeth Marvin.

Um, Willow Pond neighborhood.

Uh, not the most eloquent speaker, so bear with me.

Um I'm for the postponement.

I appreciate him putting the motion out.

Um, the whole thing just kind of feels like if you give a mouse a cookie.

That's what it feels like.

If we don't postpone, we're giving the mouse the cookie.

We're giving the mouse that can afford the cookie the cookie.

Because we don't have as much of a say as they do.

I'm just a mom.

I can't afford to put 1.3 billion dollars into the community at once.

That's not something I can do, and I think a lot of people feel that way.

A lot of people who live here in Cheyenne feel that because they have deeper pockets, they have a bigger voice.

And I think that's where the erosion of trust is coming from.

Really and truly.

Not with your decision-making skills, not with your leadership skills, but with the fact that their voice seems louder, because every time I come to one of these discussions, it's not people who are not getting a paycheck from Microscope that are for Microsoft.

Every single person that talks on behalf of a multi-billion dollar corporation is somehow connected to the corporation.

And it feels like the mouse now wants a glass of milk, and the mouse now wants a napkin, and then he's gonna need to go to the bathroom.

Make sure he doesn't have a milk mustache.

Like this is just it's just one of those things.

We we don't, it's not equal, and it's not fair, and as many committees as we have, the majority of the people speaking are for Microsoft because of course they are.

They have a vested interest in making more money, that's all I have to say about it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Penny Hollenbach again.

Um, I agree wholeheartedly with the young lady who just spoke before me.

Um I also am for postponing this.

Um, I agree.

I feel like the more we try to give, the more they're gonna take.

Um I just feel like this is all I agree, it's just the deep pockets.

Um, whoever has the most money gets the most say.

Um there was a comment about we are not um that we have water restrictions because we're preserving water.

Well, we're not because we're giving all of our water to the data centers to be able to build.

So to me, that's not preserving water.

Um, I think a lot of it too.

We think we're just focusing on the water aspect of these data centers.

My concern is um, what about our native wildlife and our native flowers and where are these guys gonna go?

We outlive out by Archer, and we've already had probably five or six mountain lion sightings within the last month because they're being forced out of wherever they're roaming at, coming into town into the county to seek out shelter and food, and in that being the said, some of them are being relocated, but a lot of them may be just shot.

So now we're putting our wildlife at risk as well.

Also, I think we need to consider.

Um, what about the foreign matter that's going into the earth?

The concrete, the steel, the wires, the heights, all of that.

How far down is that all gonna go?

That stuff is never ever gonna break down in our earth, and it's stuck there in Wyoming, which means our lands never have a chance to regenerate, um, we're just kind of stuck with that.

Also, is there a possibility of um water contamination if any of these things go wrong?

Is there a possibility of water contamination?

Um is that a wizard?

I'm sure it's always a possibility, but what are the odds of that happening?

Um I think that might be also all I have to say.

Thank you, Penny.

Yes, sir.

Again, I strongly encourage the governing body to do a postponement.

Uh, President Cray through you to Dr.

Eldridge, but the amount of money that they are putting into this project and what they could donate to the community, they could tear down the YMCA.

They put in a lot of money into that pool just before it went belly up.

And why didn't they go and donate 1.2 million dollars to the YMCA that's been here 70 years instead of boys and girls club?

Not to get off subject to that.

There's other things that we can do to sweeten the deal.

I appreciate that they're doing a very wide conservation area, but for the sake of the residents, to do a postponement on this to the limits are gonna sell no matter what, they're trying to get what they can out of it.

I don't blame that for I know this our last term should probably move from from Wyoming.

If I had 50 million dollars, I'd probably live in Hawaii.

But the fact of the matter is is that we need to do a postponement, sweeten the deal, get some more things that are out there and more transparency to the to the community, or environmental studies to the community.

This way they'll feel more comfortable about it.

So that's that's what I'd really encourage you guys to do.

A postponement take this amendment.

Thank you.

Ms.

Madrud, before we take your round two, let's take a first time.

Yes, sir.

Thank you very much.

Uh, for those of you who don't know me, Jonathan Noble with Microsoft.

Um Microsoft remains committed to the community and for paying our fair share for all the improvements that are required by this project.

We have a long history of doing so.

The we are not asking for any special processing or exemption from the process.

Uh, no special treatment around zoning, none of that.

Uh, we do recognize that the process and the appropriate process before us is to annex the property, conduct the studies in conjunction with staff to really fine-tune and hone what are those improvements from a traffic perspective, from a water perspective, et cetera.

Staff has a long history of being very effective around those conversations and making sure that the development that happens in this city works for the members of this community first and foremost.

And we abide by that and we support that.

We are hopeful tonight to have this annexation proceed so that we can continue with the millions of dollars worth of studies, the extensive work that's required with staff, et cetera, to create a project that really works for the community, not simply tomorrow, but for a long time.

As we've talked about, this is a long-term investment.

We are eager to start the process towards that investment, but we are uh once again committed to paying our fair share and really feel that the appropriate mechanism for that is through development agreements, uh, like we've done before, culminating in over 68 million dollars worth of infrastructure improvements for this city today.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

President.

Councilman Wolf.

Thank you.

Uh a few questions from Mr.

Noble, uh-huh, through you.

We're on we're on your motion to amend.

I understand that.

Um, thank you.

Um Mr.

Noble, you're one of the top Microsoft decision makers involved in this project, aren't you?

I am one of several.

Okay.

But you occupy a position of significant responsibility that's gonna be responsible for uh the development of the Highlands project and and the other projects that you have.

Correct.

Is that right?

Um so tell me specifically, what would be impaired by a decision to postpone this for four months?

Like I mentioned, we we're really eager to start those studies that are required to inform this decision.

Um right now, we don't know whether we're moving forward under county or city.

Um, you know, we're clearly in a position to move forward under county.

We actually don't think that's the right path.

We don't think it's the right path for Microsoft.

We don't necessarily think it's the right path for the position.

So we are eager to have clarity around the rules of the road and moving forward, and really feel that annexation sets those rules.

City has a strong record and tradition of managing uh data center development in particular, but all types of development in the city really effectively, and we look forward to working with the city on that process.

Follow-up, please, Mr.

President.

Mr.

Noble, the state of the record today, and from all of these hearings we have is this.

Microsoft has consistently told us that this project is 10 to 20 years in the future.

That has been your entire testimony.

Now you have said, well, we want to do this, we want to do that study, we want to try and make some inroads here.

But your overall testimony is this is a long ways off.

And so come back to this question about uh that I asked uh Ms.

Irving, which is what's your position on negotiating an annexation agreement now with the city?

Mr.

Noble just has very little to do with postponements, but uh if you could if you could give us an answer.

Absolutely.

So getting back to what I just stated, um, we feel that one getting back to the timeline piece.

While we fully anticipate this development to take 10 to 20 years to build out in full, we don't plan on waiting 10 to 20 years to start the construction.

That's the reason why we're eager to really lay the groundwork, establish the rules, work with city staff, make sure that we are all clear on the investment that it's going to require.

That's investment by Microsoft, working in conjunction uh with city, uh, various other folks to build out sewer, water, um, power, et cetera, to make sure that we are shouldering that cost completely.

Um that takes time to one design, it also takes time to build.

But our hope is to start building well before that 10-year mark.

You know, while we don't know the design, all of what Ms.

Irving said, we don't know the parameters yet, so we're not in a position to commit to specific timelines.

Our hope is that we will be in a position by going through this process to start construction on those early phases, well below before that 10-year horizon.

We can't commit to that, we don't know that.

As Rachel commented, uh, at this stage of development, very few people can commit to a specific timeline because that's how early we are.

That being said, we know the process from here, and it you know, the established process within Cheyenne is annexation, studies, make sure you enter into the development agreement to make sure all your costs are covered, uh, and that we are absorbing our fair share.

And you know, as was highlighted before, we view our fair share as all the cost being driven by our project, um, and then be in a strong position to move forward.

The sooner we get started, I think the more the benefits to city systems, uh city revenue, et cetera, begin to accrue.

Thank you, Mr.

Noble.

Uh Ms.

Councilman Layborn.

I have a question.

So during this period of time when we know that um hallgrass is coming in with that massive power project.

We know that there is great concern in other places about this uh uh question of these developments.

Was there any con consideration on Microsoft's part to look at something similar to what happened at the sweetgrass annexation agreement?

Did you ever consider it?

I'm just curious.

We have a precedent.

It certainly is has is a different, but it's in the same area and has spells out uh want more detail that is certainly helpful to uh me in terms of making a logical decision about this.

Was there consideration on Microsoft's part or the property owners' part to take a look at an annexation agreement uh as you began to analyze this?

Mr.

Noble, please.

So as we uh looked at this, had conversations with staff, we recognized the fact that we weren't asking for any special consideration.

Um we weren't looking for exemptions to how parks were being paid, other infrastructure was being paid, or any of those things.

So it's pretty clear that the existing processes and structures worked well for the city and worked well for us.

So we did not look for an exemption to the um development processes that the city has in place.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it, sir.

Um have you spoken, sir?

Okay, let's have the first time folks first.

Okay, the name's Don Taylor.

Yes, sir.

I'm gonna read something to you.

Opposition to U.S.

data center construction surged in early 26 with communities blocking or delaying 75 projects worth about 130 billion in the first quarter.

The number of active opposition groups more than doubled to 833 across 49 states, matching nearly all of 2025's total disruption in the three months.

Data Center Watch said the resistance was driven by concerns over energy consumption, environmental impacts linked to AI infrastructure.

More than 300 state bills were introduced in early 26, including moratorium proposals in 14 states reflecting growing regular regulatory scrutiny of data center expansion.

I don't get what the bums rush is.

I know that we're fighting us, we're fighting leads who have Cynthia Lumis's daughter as a part of Leeds.

We've got basically developers who, hell yes, they're gonna make profit off this thing.

That's kind of like the chicken killing dog garden a hen house.

They're innocent as hell, but they're sure a lot of feathers around their mouth.

You guys are like a bunch of little oligarchs up here.

You're competing with flipping the commissioners, leads, Microsoft, Meta.

I mean, we're just little peons.

One of your folks here who's not here, he wants to spoon feed the facts to us.

Instead of giving us real data for you know to the media, he's gonna spoon feed us.

I came from an open mic in uh January.

That ain't cool.

We have every right to have the facts, not spoon fed to us, because we sure as hell don't need them.

Sir, we watch your language, please.

Okay, that's fine.

I'm done.

Have you spoken yet, ma'am?

Okay, let's let's have your testimony.

My name is Janet Tulman, I'm from Indian Hills Community.

I just have concern because of the rush, and so I'd like to see it postponed.

First of all, because this data center will consume about one-fifth of Cheyenne, that's not a small portion of Cheyenne.

Um, and the number of people that it may impact, those that are gonna be next door neighbors to the data center and their concerns.

Um, and I'd like just to see more environmental studies to find out, you know, what type of nature is living on this property, you know.

Do these animals need to be moved somewhere?

Do the plants that might become extinct, do they need to be planted somewhere else?

Those are some of the concerns.

Also, my concern is I guess kind of with the data centers, it just makes me think back to the 1930s when the 1920s were roaring, people expanded and did all kinds of things, only to lose almost everything.

And I just have a hesitation about rushing and pushing forward, um, with this, and I would like to see um it postponed.

Thank you, sir.

Good evening, council.

Uh, my name is Rob Turse.

I'm a business agent with local 192 in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

We're plumbers, pipe fitters, HVAC service technicians.

We've been in the community since 1907.

We built the power plants in the 70s, built the troan mines, we built this state, built the country unions did, but that's besides the point.

Um I know we're here to talk about the postponing the amendment.

Uh I just want to say that the sooner we can get our local workers out to work on these projects, um, the sooner the middle class gets back to normal here in Cheyenne.

The middle class has been it's been hurting for a long time here in Cheyenne.

Um, it's been in decline.

It really has.

I mean, the middle class is stronger here in Cheyenne than it has been since since I've been here the last 32, 33 years.

Um, it's evident, it's evident here.

Uh I'm a local business owner here in town.

I can see the difference.

I go downtown four nights a week, do business downtown.

I can see the difference.

There's people down there all the time spending their money.

I'm against this this amendment because the sooner we can get our folks to work local, local guys here in town, we get paid great benefits.

Um, health care, retirement benefits, all this stuff benefits the community because we're putting back into the community this money we're earning.

Sooner we can get our guys to work on these projects, local guys.

I I tell you 360 of us there are.

Um like I said, since 1907 we've been here, and the sooner we can get our guys out there on the job to do the job safely, uh, the sooner this community is gonna benefit from that.

And the the guys, our local guys, we have several here, the sooner these guys will benefit.

I just want to say one thing real quick.

The the amount of misinformation is staggering, it it's mind-numbing.

I mean, I I just it's it keeps swirling around.

I mean, I get it.

We need to do all this responsibly, but it's it's staggering.

Uh it blows my mind.

And one more point.

I mean, why would we want to pigeonhole Microsoft at 50 million over this four months?

That's just then they might just be like, well, they're okay.

Here's your 50 million.

Why wouldn't we just keep pushing it?

I mean, we can we can get more, you know.

Why why stop at 50 million, right?

Right.

Right now, you know, this is America.

If Loomis wants to sell her land, God bless her, God bless America.

Let's get this sucker going and thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else first time?

Yes, ma'am.

Hello, I'm Yana Ilyesh, homeowner in Cheyenne.

I already wrote to all of you recently about the noise level, and this is a huge problem throughout the country.

This is not theoretical.

You live here too.

I don't think Microsoft is gonna give you millions of dollars to move to Marta's Vineyard or some other place like that where they don't have data centers.

We're talking about postponement.

Yeah, at the very least, of course.

And yes, yes.

Um, and the people that you know support this, I don't think they even understand like what they're gonna be dealing with.

People with the construction, yeah, there is noise with construction, but you go home and hopefully you can get a good night's sleep.

But this is constant, and there were I send you videos where you can hear the sounds, this low um frequency humming that people hear all the time 24-7, and any noise that is 24-7 is torture.

If if it's something that's irritating, and this is a fact.

There is one video where from Newsmax, and this investigator woman, she looked into this problem in detail, and um she's saying that this loan she calls it tonal noise, and we're we're discussing whether to postpone or not.

Yeah, yeah, that's what I'm saying.

Because we have to find out more about this.

Okay, so you're in favor.

Yeah, that's important because they need to show us first of all, they don't have a plan.

My understanding is a detailed plan, how many buildings, what kind, what type of noise is gonna be, how far is gonna be heard, what kind of power they're gonna have, what kind of power they're gonna, how many megawatts they're gonna start at?

What is their plan to scale up to?

How fast?

I haven't heard any of those details.

And my understanding is when you had annexations like this for like housing development, there was a detailed plan, and I don't know that there is a I haven't seen anything a detailed plan from Microsoft, and they say they don't ask for any special treatment, but they are.

You told us when I came here the first time in May 26, you said that this processes take a long time, five to five to six years.

Well, last time I was here, one woman representing Microsoft said that they are planning to buy this land in the next few weeks.

So all of a sudden, five to six years of planning is turning into a few weeks.

Because I don't think they're gonna buy this land and these they have pretty serious guarantees that they can do what they want on it.

So it's just everything sounds wrong, and I don't think we're gonna be safe.

You live here too.

I hope you think about your well-being, and we need more studies.

They need to show us a building, they have many data centers around the country.

Show us a building, tell us this is how much noise it's gonna make, this is how much power is gonna be, this is how much chemical slash gonna discharge for each building, and we have this many buildings.

Where is that plan?

Because I haven't heard about it, and I really look.

So that's the problem that we need we don't know enough about what's gonna happen here, and anyway.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Anyone else for the first time?

Okay, Miss Madrid.

Hello, Richard Harmony Meadows.

I apologize.

I try to avoid double dipping.

Um there's just a few things that I would like to address that have been said with regards to this um postponement.

First of all, I would like to say to thank you guys, because despite what is out there on social media and what happens in these rooms, I have had conversations with almost every single one of you, and there have been actionable steps taken to address concerns, and I appreciate that very much.

And I think it's important that that everybody understands that that's that that is happening.

Um so um somebody had earlier asked about failure in these closed loop systems, and and yes, of course, like that's a that happens with everything.

Um the problem is that when we cluster data centers or anything else, it's creating a statistical certainty that something will go wrong, and it's not if it's when.

Um, and I actually ran the numbers and I can send that to you because I can't remember it all off the top of my head.

Um, but um, with regards to the need to annex in order to plan.

I well, I do understand that the problem with this city's process is that it isn't just annex and then time to plan, it's annex, update the map, rezone, and it's over.

There is no time to plan or do these studies um between annexing and rezoning and and then the public process is over.

Um, I would say I agree it probably is not typical to have these long-term plans developed on these massive properties.

But is it is an annexation of this size typical?

Of course it's not typical that there would be plans.

This is the most atypical annexation that we've ever seen in the city.

Um I remain unimpressed that Microsoft is paying their fair share.

That's the bare minimum that we all pay our fair share.

We that's we all do that.

That's kind of an expectation.

That's not like a gift to the community that you're paying for your own infrastructure.

Um, and I could be I could be wrong about the work local workers.

Um, I think they're working.

I don't know if there's some that are still not working, considering all the projects that are already happening.

So I think our local workers, if they want to be working, I think they are.

I don't know.

I don't have any evidence to support that one way or the other, but that would be my guess.

And um, if they're not working, it just that the need for a man camp doesn't support the idea that local workers don't have jobs.

Um, okay, I think that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further discussion on the postponement.

Can you turn on your microphone, please and identify your goal?

I just want you guys to postpone it.

You know, you guys, there's so much to answer, and so much Microsoft going on.

First of all, where that guy is talking about Microsoft, he needs to know, figure out where everything else.

That Microsoft that we have already run this area, they should have figured out by now what's going on, still saying that we need to have time and see what's going on.

They shouldn't know already because that markets off the one we have is up and running.

That's my first one.

Second one, uh nothing's back to normal for us for me where I live.

If you're living next to where they're building these Microsoft, it's it's annoying, it's heartbreaking.

Washing these equipment going across, right?

I could see it right there, working at where at my where I live.

And drilling wells too well, they've it's first well, second well, they're drilling.

And you guys, some of you guys that uh for it don't understand corporates don't understand.

We be people that live near or residents, family, my neighbors.

If you were living out where we were, you probably consider thinking about it.

What we go through, what we see, we don't know what's coming to that area.

I know it's gonna be big, and then you know, it's it's like I said, if you were living if it was you and that Microsoft next to your house near your neighborhood, you'd be considered too.

Second of all, my wife was talking.

This is gonna be a little off.

Uh my wife was talking to one of her friends, her friend was talking to somebody that's a big honcho of Microsoft.

She asked him the question of what about the wells you guys are drilling and so forth?

How about if you can time in the water?

He turned around and told her, says, Who cares?

You know, we're gonna own Cheyenne pretty soon.

This is from one of these Microsoft big executives, or Microsoft doesn't have any wells, data center.

They don't they're not using wells, they're using cells.

Yes, they are with me where they are, they drilling two wells.

I am on the well water.

That's not a Microsoft.

No, no, I'm not talking about like data center.

You guys and science data center wants it too, same thing, maybe different, but I'm saying this guy said he's gonna own Cheyenne.

That's what that's what's quote.

I just something you guys gotta think about.

Who's gonna control this city?

Are you guys or they're gonna control it?

That's all I saw to say.

Thank you, sir, for allowing me to speak.

But yeah, nothing's back to normal where I live.

So there's no normal on that.

People that live near it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

I'm back.

Uh, this is Gregory Barrow, um, Cheyenne resident.

And uh I just wanted to bring up something that in support of holding off on this for right now until November 9th.

Um, because I think the the data centers have overtaken this country so quickly, not just Wyoming, but all over.

And uh there's regular or there's gonna be laws coming out that are gonna change things.

There's there's gonna be requirements that as the one lady spoke about noise complaints and the noise these things put out.

Um, there's a lot of that kind of stuff.

I don't think we fully understand yet, and and that's what may change in 10 years from now.

The long-range estimate I heard, uh, how many of you council members are even gonna be here in 10 15 years from now?

So that all changes.

So my suggestion to you is for possibly uh getting together a coalition of citizens, because there is such a um, you know, um concern about this whole matter.

And at last I checked Cheyenne's about 65,000, 70,000 people.

I understand the workers that are you know needing the work.

That's fine, but there's a lot more residents that got to deal with this, especially the ones that are living around it.

So this coalition that you could kind of draft up would be, I don't know, 15, 20 people that can monitor that can stay in touch with it because city council, you know, they they need to have some bite, this coalition.

They need to have the mayor's ear so that they could alert the city to when things do go awry, if they go awry, right?

Seven, ten years down the road.

Uh, I don't know if this exists anywhere else in the country, but we could be the first, and we should be, because citizens are very concerned about this, and I think something like that would help keep the playing field honest, and so that the people would have a voice, because ultimately the people are the ones that you know decide, and they're they've got the majority.

Uh it's not, you know, it's not the other business owners and all that, the people come together.

And I think you've seen that demonstration tonight where we've come together with these concerns, and so that's a proposal that there, I mean, there's quite a few that are pretty smart on all this data center stuff, and they could work with Microsoft, but they could also have the mayor's ear, the city council ear.

So when if this gets approved later and problems do arise, um, they would have a voice in it, and that's where the delay or the moratorium or whatever you want to call it for four months, it might give that time to where it can actually form that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Last chance, yes, ma'am.

Donna Frost again.

So I'm for the postponement as well.

Um, just research it does never hurt anybody.

Um, having homes here, we always had to abide by laws where we purchase homes, whether it's billion dollars or not, we have to worry about our neighbors as well.

And as you guys be in the committee that protects its citizens, I think it's your due diligence to not just look at the money but look at the health and research of what we have going on behind it.

It just kind of feels like, you know, what if it's all for the growth, then why didn't Budweiser come in years ago when they wanted to come in?

Because the resources, the water, all that stuff, they were rejected, but now the data centers are rushing in.

So I'm just saying, what is the di what is the difference on holding back for a little bit just to protect the citizens a little bit more and give us an ease of mind of what's gonna happen to our city?

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Yes, ma'am.

Sorry, Penny Hallenbach again, just a final word.

Um, I'm so for postponing this.

Um, bottom line is I think a lot of us here just don't want the DC centers here in our community.

Um it's not about the money, it's not about what they can bring to the community, it's about us not wanting them on our land.

It's about us not wanting to live across the street from them, behind them, next to them.

We don't want to look out our windows and see what we used to have these beautiful rolling hills.

Now we have this big ugly data center that just looks horrible and it's not it's not Wyoming.

I've been in Wyoming for 40 plus years.

I don't want to have to look at ugly, nasty data centers, and I know Microsoft was saying that they will basically reconstruct um the land that they dig up to kind of mimic our natural habitat of what was there before.

It's not the same.

It took years and years and years for the rocks and the bushes and all that to grow.

You're not gonna replace that.

Um so that was my final word.

I think you all just need to look at what the actual residents want, not about the money.

Um, it's about what we want.

We've been here, we love our land, we want to keep our land the same way that it's always been.

I'm up for change, don't get me wrong, but do we have to destroy our land in order to do that?

Um I just think you all really need to postpone this and think and listen to the residents about what we want.

And from what I'm hearing, we don't want this.

It's just not Wyoming, it's not the Wyoming way.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, not seeing anyone else.

We'll close public comments and we'll bring the motion to amend back up on the dias, Dr.

Emmons.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I was always told you don't share your dirty laundry of your family.

But I gotta say that this whole situation is so disturbing to me.

We have two people who have come up with a an amendment to take us right back to where we were at the beginning of the spring.

When uh one of our fellow councilmen had the idea for a moratorium.

We went through the whole process.

We went through all the readings, we took all of the comment, we heard every single bit of it.

We listened, we listened to both sides.

This council took a vote to um deny the moratorium, and to move forward.

So here we are again doing the very same thing, which I find incredibly disingenuous, and I am certain that my esteemed colleagues have they're trying to do the right thing.

But to me, this is just this is like a workaround.

I didn't get what I wanted, and you can give me that face.

I didn't get what I wanted, so I'm gonna take another run at it.

And that's not okay.

It's not okay for these people to say, okay, we told you no once, but maybe try it again, and we'll give you another false hope that we're gonna do that.

We made a decision before not to do it, and there were the reasons for doing it.

We have conflated these issues incredibly right now.

This is about annexation, it's not about all these other things we've talked about, it's about whether or not a landowner who has requested annexation of their land that they want to sell, whether or not they can annex it, but we've conflated it all out of bounds, and that's not okay.

We need to follow the process we have, and we need to do it honestly and with transparency, which is what we keep hearing, even though we've listened to hundreds of hours, I think, of comments and emails about this.

So I would encourage my fellow council members to vote against this ordinance.

We made a decision before to move forward.

Let's move forward.

This last speaker put it better than anybody else.

She said we don't want them here, it's not gonna be.

Thank you, Mr.

President, through you.

A very simple reason.

Suppose a ranch owner would like to sell their land to a manufacturer or a warehouse distribution center, housing development.

I doubt we'd be having these discussions.

The fact that, you know, I'm all for responsible growth and environmental stewardship.

Um, but boy, I believe private property rights are affected whenever government gets in the way of a property owner who's a willing seller, and a business that is a willing buyer, that really um that really concerns me.

And I think we'd be setting a very bad precedent.

So does that mean that a business wants to come into town, goes through the process, and then maybe a council, a future council says, you know what?

I think we're gonna hold out, and before we annex anything, we're gonna we're gonna say we want 10 million.

I just think it it really concerns me that we're treating businesses inconsistently, does Microsoft have deep pockets?

You bet, but just because they they're a multi-billion dollar corporation, doesn't really mean we should be treating them differently, the owner of the property wants to engage in a lawful business transaction with a willing buyer, and based on everything I've seen, the annexation request satisfies statutory requirements and all of our ordinances, and so if we're to deny a reasonable business transaction, even though all the legal requirements have been met, and then by the way, hang a $50 million tab on it as well, it I I just nope, I can't support it.

Councilman Escobel, thank you, Mr.

President, through you.

Uh I guess I would repeat what I said at one of the previous meetings, because not all of you were here for that, but you really want to stop data centers, the building you need to go to, swallowing at the Golden Dome about seven and a half blocks that way.

The reason the data centers come here is because of tax laws, the tax structure in Wyoming.

That's set at the state legislative level.

Uh of course, the climate is suitable for data centers here in Wyoming.

That's another reason they come here, or not coming here because the Cheyenne City Council's giving them their golden ticket.

We actually have the strictest regulations for data centers of any city in the country.

That's why they want to build in the city.

As opposed to the county.

On another note, since I guess I got called an oligarch and been told I'm on the take for data centers.

And I've told my colleagues this.

So they take 50 cents of every dollar I make being a councilman.

We make $2,000.

That's our compensation for being up here.

So there's a thousand that then they'll take half of the annuity.

So your spouses will also fall in the railroad retirement system.

My wife, who has nothing to do with any of this, loses $500 of her annuity because I'm a councilman.

Then they take social security out of my check.

We'll never see that.

We're not in the social security system.

So I pay was $39.42 a month for serving on the council.

So I'm gonna never take one dollar of corporate money, not even in my 10 years of being in the legislature.

So thank you.

Whoever said that for giving me the opportunity to put this on public record.

Thank you.

Councilman Wolf.

Thank you, Mr.

President, through you.

Thank you for your service, Mr.

Escapel.

Um, where do you start on this?

Um, this is the largest annexation that the city of Cheyenne has ever done.

It's probably the largest one we will ever do.

Because if you look at the maps, all of these big blocks of land are being divided, bought up, built on.

And we first started this.

Let's review a little history to address Councilman Emmons' uh concerns about why we're doing this.

This is not 2025.

This is 2026, in which the entire country's opinions about data centers has fundamentally changed, and we, as the leaders of the city, for better or for worse, need to recognize that.

Now, what do we do with the moratorium?

Moratorium, I voted against the moratorium, as did nine other, as did nine people on the council.

I didn't think it was the right thing to do.

I thought it would not be responsible.

It would create chaos in the business community.

So I voted against that.

This is different, Madam Councilwoman.

This is different.

Microsoft, this first of all, this comes to us with every single issue you can imagine in an annexation proceeding.

Absolutely everyone, and we got another one this evening from the city attorney.

So when this first arose and goes starts our complicated process, I said we should treat this differently, we should treat this with the enormity and respect that it deserves.

We didn't do that.

We treated it with the same respect that we treat a 2.7-acre annexation, which is one of the items that we just dealt with.

One of the largest corporations in the world, who is already here, has a number of data centers in operation, under construction, and they have plans for many more, so we're told.

Okay, we should create a separate process of this.

Did that happen?

No.

That was in my judgment a failure of leadership.

We should have done that.

So once we're into this process, what do we do?

Now it feels like we've all been listening to data centers for months now.

I have been to probably not hundreds of hours, but a whole bunch of time, along with everybody else.

But for this project, this is the first full council meeting that we actually are addressing this.

This went to the committee.

The committee heard some testimony.

First, well, I take it back.

First, we had a public hearing, and we had some testimony there, and then we had a committee meeting, and now we're here on second reading.

If this postponement is not approved, and you can count the votes yourselves, we're gonna have another committee hearing, and then we're gonna have another full council discussion of this.

So if you want to save some time, council members, you should vote to postpone, but I don't think that's the way it's gonna turn out.

Now, there are a host of issues that we should address with this, and I've been trying to do that, but the biggest issue is that what is proposed in here is trying to balance up the benefits with the detriments, the burdens that come from all of these projects.

And a notion which is actually very well supported, that cities ought to be who are in this decision-making process, ought to be in partnerships with the data center developers, and that's all I've suggested.

Spend some time talking about what a partnership looks like.

And guess what?

We have a perfect model from 2018, and I have it right here.

And what does it do?

And it's the one with the same landowners.

And it is a very remarkable document because it starts from the premise of we're doing an annexation and zoning, which in and of itself vitiates your whole argument, which I've heard time and time again that we're only talking about annexation.

So they do a document that says we're going to talk about annexation, we're going to talk about zoning.

We're going to talk about traffic, we're going to talk about dedication of land for parks.

We're going to talk about the plan development of this community.

And that's all I'm suggesting that we get the mayor and his staff to do.

But for some reason, my colleagues apparently don't want to do that.

They don't want to lead on this issue.

They don't want to appear to be actually in a position of saying, Microsoft, what are you going to do for us?

Yes, a million here, a million there is fine.

And you're going to pay for all of your improvements.

Well, I agree with Ms.

Madrid on this.

Of course, they're going to pay for those.

They benefit from them.

Why wouldn't they?

So we shouldn't pay for them.

You don't want to pay for them out here.

I keep hearing this notion of private property, and I'm just mystified by it.

Councilman White, Councilman Aldridge.

We're not interfering with anybody's private property rights, you have no right as a property owner to be annexed.

Mr.

Brody's memo to us this evening tells us exactly that, and the Kate Law, which I have read is abundantly clear on that subject.

So if somebody comes to us and says, I own this piece of property and I want you to annex it, and by God, you have to do that.

We can tell them no, and that's clearly within our legislative powers.

And if we tell them no, we haven't deprived them of any private property rights.

When you own private property, you have in the law a bundle of sticks.

None of those sticks represents the right to be annexed.

The property owners' rights in this case are completely unaffected if we to deny this outright.

Now, if we if they the property owner has made the requisite showing under the facts and that the procedures have been followed, then the statute says you shall issue the annexation order.

But that's a fact-based determination, and we have yet to make that determination on this council.

So I could go on and on, and we may, because in fact, if we deny this postponement, I got a whole bunch of questions for the planning department.

But so let me just summarize it's in all of our interests, members of the council, to postpone this.

It's in all of our interest to lock up the mayor and the chief of staff and the staff and say, go negotiate a strong agreement that deals with all of these issues, and I've outlined them in this motion, and there are probably more, and get those things addressed.

And I'm not commanding you to do that, but it's in the city's interest to do it.

And we just heard Mr.

Noble really say, Oh, we want to do some planning and we want to do things.

That's just corporate speed for we don't know what the heck we're gonna do in the next four months, but it's unlikely to be very substantial.

And then you heard him close his argument by saying, yes, we may be 10 to 20 years out, which brings me to my one other final point, which Mr.

Brody's memo brings out clearly, which is if this is so far away, why are we doing it?

Why don't we deny this annexation, and then let the council that's in place five years from now, ten years from now, deal with all of these issues.

That notion hasn't gotten any traction, but I may bring it up again.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I appreciate how well you've conducted this hearing and um and for allowing me to make that presentation.

Dr.

Remons.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Three things.

One, I apologize, no apologies.

No, no, it's okay.

I know you feel strongly about this, Councilwoman Emmons.

And I didn't have dinner, so my blood sugar's probably all screwed up, but I do want to apologize because that was not okay.

Second of all, um, maybe I forgot my second again.

Um, I know the document that um we were given with the umendment on it, two numbers two through the end of the road, I have no issues with.

And those are things that can still happen, but it doesn't have we don't have to postpone in order for those things to happen.

We're gonna have those studies.

They have to provide the studies through EPA, through the county, through the city, they have to do those things in order to go forward anyway.

So I don't think it's an either-or.

I think we I feel strongly we can't proceed with this and still make sure that everything is done appropriately, is done to protect the environment, to protect the community, and to protect the people in Cheyenne.

Sharon, just one comment.

Your thought is exactly right, but going to a point that I made in an interrogation that I had with Mr.

Bloom is that once we annex zone change the map, all of which we are gonna be asked to do tonight, and then at the final council meeting on third reading, the public's involvement in that process is done.

All of you disappear from that process because it's all done behind at that point the closed doors of hopefully the renovated town city hall.

Uh so while yes, you're right that some of that work may be done.

The reason you want to put it in an annexation agreement, and the reason they did it in sweet grass, is that they're locked into it by contract.

And that's why we need to do it now, and we and if we miss this opportunity, if we miss the opportunity to get an annexation agreement now and define these issues and define their obligations, because remember, they want these things not in place now in 10 years from now.

And we better be awfully careful and awfully thoughtful, because in 10 years from now, who knows what the environmental constraints are going to be.

And if we don't say we want you to use best available technology, then we may never get it.

Because it might not be in Microsoft's interest 10 years from now to actually build that way.

Councilman Moody.

Just real quick.

My colleague from Warren once said it is on point.

Just again, this is not the same as the moratorium, it's just slowing it down.

That's what people wanted.

That's why I proposed it.

So I ask everybody vote aye on this.

Thank you.

All right.

Anyone else?

Mr.

Labour.

Um so we don't have any comments online from the council people and the mayor.

Mr.

President, I don't see any hands raised.

Thank you.

Uh well, Mr.

President, I hope you'll allow some latitude here.

We're on the postponement.

I'm trying, I'm just trying to push the meeting along, Mr.

Ligwood.

We're gonna have another opportunity after this discussion.

I have one question in particular that I'd like answered before I make my statement here.

And that question is: is the uh Microsoft property here that uh looks like it's going to be annexed, going to be turned over to the leads organization for a business park, or is Microsoft going to run that business park?

Um I don't know who to ask that to.

Um, I think Dante's here.

We'll ask Mr.

Russian if he has any information on that.

Welcome again, sir.

Thank you, Councilman.

To answer your question, it has not been agreed to yet.

We currently do manage Bison Business Park proper as it currently sits.

There'd be a discussion to be had.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's an important point, Mr.

President, that and I think it's um very relevant to our discussion of the postponement because the postpone, the entire idea of the postponement is to gather information, bring it into a more uh cohesive form, and work with uh those people and entities that are interested.

I particularly want to note that uh in our agenda tonight, we are approving uh that agreement with leads for a hundred thousand dollars a year, it's on the consent agenda, but I consider that to be a tremendous bargain and something that is relevant to this discussion because of leads management of existing business parks and uh Microsoft data centers in those facilities.

So I think that it's important to note that Microsoft has been a good good partner, I guess you could call it, in uh those data center projects that are do exist in those business parks, and I also want to point out that one of the things that we're talking about here is the amount of money that some of us believe is reasonable to ask from Microsoft Corporation when they annex into the city and become part of the city, and that is something that has been mentioned here earlier, Mr.

President, regarding the question of the Industrial Sighting Commission and how those projects uh become law and are built.

So I'd like to point out that people might not agree with this, but the facts of the matter are that the Industrial Sighting commission and that process, which was begun many years ago by uh Governor Hirschler and his whole point was growth on our terms has changed now that uh the legislature saw fit to do that, so it's not extortion any more than it's extortion to uh get the payments that were now being made, as I understand from the treasurer today from the gold mine folks up out in the county, it's about paying for participation in the city, and the reason I ask for this postponement, and I think it's spilled out in a number of places, is the fact that we have tremendous needs in this city, and they're not to fix the YMCA, they're not for uh wishes, they're for needs, and we could certainly use this revenue in very effective ways on our drainage program that is woefully behind the times and needs a lot of help, or the other items in our many, many million dollars of delayed uh maintenance on other issues.

So I just want to be sure what try to understand why I have my opinion about this, and it is that uh this delay, this postponement is reasonable because of the process.

This is not anything more than those of us who take this responsibility and look at the issues, choose to act on an absolute good faith method.

When I look at the conditions of annexation, the we are to review, and we do review as we did tonight on smaller projects, and this obviously is uh inconceivable in the past, but the question is logical and feasible in my mind.

So when I look at logical and feasible in South Cheyenne, which with what's going on right out there right now, when I look at logical and feasible when tall grass energy is coming off that Cheyenne hub with massive power to one of the largest power plants, certainly bigger than anything in the region, I don't know nationally, is that logical?

Well, that's my opinion of whether that's logical or not, and that's all the decisions that we all have to make.

Is this logical?

Is it legitimate to follow through with the process that is in existence in the state of Wyoming to ask massive industrial developments to contribute to the needs of the community?

Well, it obviously is if this is the particular method of doing it, uh so be it, but we're not being obstructionists, we're not being uh attempting to go back on a decision that's been made.

This decision is being made tonight, and we have a process here that we brought forward for legitimate discussion in a good faith effort to talk about unprecedented issues.

We don't deal with these kind of issues uh we haven't.

We've dealt with some really good projects out in our business parks.

I applaud leads for everything they've done, but this is way different, and it's way more controversial.

So asking for the process to follow our existing template of the immediately adjacent property might be considered by some to be wrong.

We don't believe it's wrong.

We believe it's a legitimate attempt, good faith attempt, to look at something that's never happened here before, and probably will never happen again, and to try to make sure that right from the initiation of that annexation, we have these conditions, and these conditions are serious.

My motivation is to look at these facts.

My motivation is to look at South Cheyenne and in the county where the massive power plant is being under construction.

And that power is going to go somewhere and it's not going to go far.

And it's going to go a lot of it.

And so I hope it's understood that we're not trying to stand in the way of progress.

We're not trying to uh harm Microsoft.

I'm certainly aware of all that they've done.

And certainly there are, they're not the only uh data center people.

I mean, there are other data center folks doing it.

So I hope everyone understands we're looking at this set of facts, and at this very important decision that is unlike any I've ever the magnitude of this and the amount of money involved is uh incredibly different than my many many years on the council, it's just unprecedented.

So this is our effort to look at this difficult, unprecedented situation within the law within our motion tonight, and say we have an opinion about this, and this opinion is that we need to really understand better the details as has been spelled out in other annexation agreement.

So I don't think it's wrong, and I and I hope we all recognize that uh there's differences of opinion and there's differences of interpretation, but as I interpret this annexation action, particularly in light of the governor's recent uh uh statement, and it's it's on the it's on us, and if we're looking at it a little differently, so be it.

If we're looking at it within the process that we're following tonight, so be it.

That's that's the way this works or it should work, and if we don't succeed with this uh motion tonight, certainly I expect I'm gonna be on the council for another two and a half years.

I expect to be involved in these decisions.

I expect to try to try to uh use my best judgment to look at South Cheyenne and what's happening there and all of the considerations that come into that area, which are city county, um lot of issues, and I look forward to doing that.

I expect that uh we'll be able to do it, but above all else, I want to note uh my colleague here's point the public, this is the public's opportunity, and I and I applaud the meeting tonight.

Everybody had a chance to to speak, but we're gonna move into a different process, and it's gonna be very expensive, and it's not gonna be of the scale we've seen previously, in my opinion.

So uh I hope we all keep it in mind that uh we're in this together, we have differences of opinion, we look at this process a little differently.

Um, I certainly do.

I've attended these meetings.

I think uh we're gonna be getting later in this meeting into the uh planning commission's questions.

Uh I think there are a lot of questions.

This is our attempt to get the answers.

If it doesn't uh succeed tonight, we understand, but it is not anything more than attempting to do the job we are elected to do.

Thank you.

We have a motion in front of us to amend and postpone until November 9th.

Any further discussion?

See none.

All in favor of the motion to amend signify by saying I.

Those opposed.

No.

Online, do we have councilman Rennie?

We have Councilman Rennie and Mayor Patrick Collins.

And their votes.

No, no.

The uh hands of those in favor is Councilman Wolf, Councilman Moody, Councilman Labourne.

The motion to amend fails.

We're back on the main ordinance.

Further discussion from the council.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Uh, President Seagrave, I have a question for city treasurer.

I'm just wondering if she might be able to tell us uh what, and I recognize that this is not necessarily Microsoft's um or the proposed land, but if she can tell us what the revenue was um from property taxes that were paid from um data centers this last year, Madam Director, do you have any way of knowing that?

Um, Mr.

President, through you, I do not have that way.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, I'm going to be a yes vote for this annexation tonight.

I believe that um it's in the city's best interest to be able to provide city water um and have it metered, versus having um the opportunity for someone to uh drill into our aquifers uh through wells.

I also believe that uh the discharge uh my understanding will be put into tanks, and that way it'll be able to be tested before it's released into our public water system, which I believe is uh a health and safety standard and is more beneficial for our community.

Um I also believe that the property tax that we will um have generated from this, um, even if this takes 10 years to build out, point of order.

We're talking about I'm voting my about talking about why I'm going to vote for this.

Okay, Madam Councilwoman, but you've also argued uh that this is just about annexation, not about data centers.

Well, thank you, Councilman Wolf.

Um, go ahead and and let's let's hear the rest of the of my last reason for voting for this annexation is um because I believe that through this annexation process, which will then uh be addressed on the next item of zoning, that we will also be collecting the sales tax for however long on the electricity, which quite honestly is probably the bigger benefit.

Um, I will be voting yes.

You have no idea whether that's true or not for the highlands project.

Councilman Wolf is her opinion, please.

Yes, so further thank you further discussion on the ordinance in front of us.

Councilman Moody, yeah.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Through you, thank everybody for public comment.

I will be a no, this is too large, live unanswered questions, and jobs are not gonna be impacted for construction, they're still constructing data centers.

You know, we're still gonna collect the tax revenue from the data centers already there and the electricity sales tax that are already there, so it's just to increase the revenue.

However, we have to look at more than just are we gonna get that revenue 10, 20 years from now?

So again, it's not gonna impact the ones that are currently there or anybody's jobs that they currently have, but I will be a no tune on answered questions.

Thank you, Dr.

Remmons.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm gonna be a yes on this, and the reason is because I feel like when I was elected to this position, it was to be a steward for the city and the city's resources and the services to the uh residents of the community, and this is the right thing to do to impact all of those uh city resources by annexing the property.

Thank you.

Councilman Wolf.

Mr.

President, through you.

Um to my third issue that I was going to bring up, which was a set of questions about annexation from Mr.

Bloom.

Is he still with us?

And direct your questions to the to the chairman, Mr.

Wolf.

What's your question?

Mr.

President, I actually have a series of questions.

Let's take them one at a time.

Um Mr.

Bloom, let me give you this.

That's for the public.

This is for the council.

Go ahead, Mr.

Wolf.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Hi, Mr.

Chairman, through you.

Mr.

Bloom, um, what I'm trying to do is understand the parameters of annexation in your thinking and the thinking of the planning and zoning department.

And I've constructed a set of hypotheticals which are uh before you in shorthand form.

I've also reproduced the statutes that pertain to annexation.

Um I want to start with a base case scenario, which is land to be annexed about 3,500 acres, it's undeveloped, used exclusively for cattle ranching operation.

It's close to the city but not right next door to develop city or residences, east and south of Laramie County, uh community college, south of uh sweetwater street grass residential area, and commercial development.

If the property is annexed to the city, then the city's obligated to apply sewer and water.

Uh the land is within the sewer and water boundary.

Uh base zoning is a G agriculture.

Okay, so the first question is um this is just a cattle ranch.

That's all it is, and that's all maybe they think about.

So they come to you, landowner comes to you and says, We want this annexed.

So what do you ask him?

Mr.

Bloom?

Chair Three to members of council.

First of all, Councilman Wolf, I really appreciate all the work you put into this.

I don't know what your goal here is to evaluate this.

If we do have someone come forward with an annexation request, yeah, it's their right to request annexation.

We make a recommendation on how it meets required findings, which are very loose, very open interpretation, and only our recommendation is presented to you, the governing body, for you to consider if it meets those criteria.

And in this specific case, we feel it meets the criteria for annexation.

Okay, so if somebody just has a ranch and vacant land, then you say, okay, I'll take your petition for annexation and uh move forward with it.

Okay, so so on that question you would answer yes, annex.

So let's go to question number two.

They come to you and say we want you to annex this, but we're gonna put a conservation easement across the entire property that's going to say that this has to be an agriculture forever.

Does the city think it's prudent to annex uh agriculture land for perpetuity?

Director, Chair, members of the city council.

Um, I would defer that question to you.

Ultimately, it is your decision to make as the representative of the city, the city governing body to determine if that's the best interest regarding conservation easements in general, where they are put in place in areas that would be potentially urban, urbanized and for urban development, those are problematic because they hinder growth and development.

Now, in this specific case of the Highlands annexation, uh our comprehensive plan does talk about a natural and sensitive heritage area, which is paralleling the is along the ridgeline and it's the bluff.

That is something that was included in the 2014 plan shine document.

Those actually included in the 2006 plan Shine document as well.

So looking at the community uh sensitivity to that natural feature.

I would think that if there is a preservation easement of some source or some type of easement that guaranteed that that uh further complied with the plan, which is voluntary, it's not regulatory, it's a voluntary um action, then that'd be fine.

Okay, so annex that under that with a conservation easement.

Okay, so they come to you now, the ranch owner, and say um we want you to annex this, and we want to put a um feedlot on this, and we want to put a meat processing plant on this land, and we want you, the city to supply us with water, and we have a the state of the art plant that's gonna use as little water as possible, and we have a way to handle the manure.

What would you do then?

Mayor, or sorry, chair, members of council.

Um, in that specific case, this zoning that we have proposed right now could allow that type of use.

So we're treated just the same.

We don't evaluate annexations or zonings based on proposed uses.

Um, when an applicant or landowner does disclose what they are proposing, at that time we will mention that, but there is no guarantee in the um years of being in planning and development.

There are many times where a development has been proposed, and that development is not what ends up.

Um it's very common uh for developments to change.

In fact, we built a fire station on the site of a proposed uh trampoline park at one time, development plans change, and that was presented to you in front of the governing body that was going to be a trampoline park at one time.

Okay, so you would take the position that yes, from your position, you'd recommend that it be annexed, chair.

Members of the council, yes, we would we would find it to meet the review criteria.

Okay.

Uh, Mr.

Chairman, again, so we're on number five, uh, or number four, I'm sorry.

Um, so they come to you and say, we want you to annex this ranch land, and you say, Well, what are you gonna use it for?

Because we need to establish donor, and they tell you it's none of your business.

I don't have to tell you that.

This is my private property right, which we've heard sort of tonight.

Um, so what do you say to that?

You annex under those conditions.

Director, chair, members of the council.

We don't have the right to require that they disclose what they're proposing the use for.

There are times in the development process like the site plan where we can look at a detailed um use analysis, those are accompanied with traffic studies, drainage studies, um, a lot more technical studies on how it would affect the environment.

But if it's annexation and they choose not to disclose what they are intending to build there, we're strictly looking at it for we're looking at it um amongst this review criteria for annexation.

Okay, so annex under that circumstance in hypo number five.

So uh number four.

So, so in hypothetical number five, they come to you and they say, We want you to annex this property, and oh, by the way, if you annex it, once you annex it, we get paid a lot more money.

And so we need you to help us facilitate that land transaction by approving this annexation.

Is that a discussion you ever have?

And is that affect your annexation decision?

Chair, Chair members of the council.

I've never had a discussion like that regarding a developer with any type of land development deal.

The ultimate goal is for someone to make a profit, the person selling the land, the person developing the land, the person providing a service.

That's a given.

We're not ever put in a situation when that you had described there.

And I applaud you for that, because that's probably not something that is actually something through you, Mr.

Chairman, that you want to get involved in.

Alright, now let's turn to Microsoft and the annexation for a data center.

So they come to you and they say, We want you, we want you to annex this, and we want to put a data center on that.

I assume that you'd process that in the normal course of annexation business.

Chair members of council, um, yes, we would process that the normal way of business.

If you look at our social media pages, discussion points, even if we have a car wash, a bank, a coffee shop.

Man, do I hear the public say we have too many of those?

Do I say time out, we're done at data centers that let's no, we don't.

Okay, and I've heard that argument before, but this is so far from a car wash and a liquor store.

I mean, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of feet under roof uh for these data centers, some of them uh and maybe more than one building.

So it's not a very apt comparison, but I gather your decision would be to annex.

So Chair, it may be directly it may be appropriate to compare the water usage from a data center to a car wash, though.

That might be a fair argument.

That's true, but probably not the energy use.

Fair.

Um so hypothetical number seven.

They come to you and say, We want you to annex, but we're gonna build on this property for 10 years.

Should we should the city annex that?

Correct.

Chair members of council.

I've owned my the present house for eight years, I'm finally completing my backyard.

So I can't set a timeline on when a project is complete.

It is a free market.

Anyone can buy a piece of land, they can buy land, whether it's for strategic positioning in the industry, whether it's because they just want to have it now because the price is right, because there's no cheaper time to buy land than right now compared to tomorrow.

I can't prejudge a development based on when they intend to develop it.

So annex, go forward with the annexation, director, chair, members of council, yes, that's correct.

Thank you.

Uh final one uh on these hypotheticals.

Um so they come to you and they say, Okay, we want you to annex, and we want to put a data center here, and also we may want to put our own power plant on this site, and we want you to be you, the city, to be able to supply us with water for that.

What would you say about that annexation?

And chair members of council, um, that's a really good question.

Right now, we have not had a development proposal that has moved forward where someone has said through an application that they are installing a data center with a power plant that is um attached to it.

Um, I do know that there's technologies out there for power plants that could be natural gas that do have systems that use water and ones that are air cooled that don't.

Um typically those discussions occur with our board of Public Utilities, um, and I'm not aware how those work with the inner workings because we do have you know some water concerns that do exist, and they try to be prudent with um promising and pledging our water beyond our capacity.

Um, regarding the specific data center developments.

Right now, I do know that there have been some um discussions of alternative power that could occur that hasn't been necessarily disclosed to us, or at least not me, um, that there is a power generation facility that is being uh constructed on a data center site.

Um we are like I'll take that back.

We are working with one uh data center developer who is looking at a uh hydrogen style facility, but we're trying to get some more information on what that exactly is.

Um, but that's that's really the only one that actually has something in the in the pipeline that I'm aware of.

Um thank you.

Just Mr.

Chairman, just one more question, um, if I might uh through you.

Um I appreciate your uh analysis on these.

Um does does a landowner have an absolute right to have their land annexed?

Director, Chair, members of council, um, under state statute, the required findings pretty much say if you you meet these, your you satisfy the conditions for annexation.

Ultimately, it's the um governing body who makes that decision.

We do have some tools in place um in the planning realm where we can look at um where we want a city to grow, how we want that land use to look, and those are the processes that we're going through with the land use plan amendment and the corresponding change to urban growth boundary in Wyoming.

What's been very common when it comes to our growth policies, especially for municipalities, is to annex.

There are other communities that uh don't annex and they stay within their confines, and that can lead to challenges as well.

Look at Boulder, Colorado, for example.

Um that community has very limited growth potential because of how it's been set up, how they hand out water, and the result there is unattainable, unaffordable housing that they're rapidly trying to address.

And that's great, exactly.

Chair, member of council, uh, councilman Wolfenthal, Boulder, Colorado.

They started with the Danish plan back in back in the day in the I believe it was the 70s, which had some very strict growth controls.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Bloom.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Mr.

Chairman, further discussion.

Further discussion.

Councilman Labour.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

In the uh on the back side of this handout that just went out, uh it deals with statute 15142.

We get to subsection C.

The annexing municipality shall prepare a proposed annexation report as specified in this subsection.

This report shall, at a minimum, contain, and it goes on in great detail of what that report shall contain.

Uh I haven't seen any such report.

Is there one?

That specifically follows the state statute here about what that uh minimum.

I won't read it all, but um, cost of infrastructural improvements, basic services, um, cost of infrastructure improvements required within the existing boundaries.

Um, have we prepared a document of this nature, Mr.

Balloon?

Director Bloom.

Mayor members of council, that's a great observation that was in here.

Um, we've discussed that a couple of times with some previous annexations, specifically the county pocket annexations.

Now, a lot of uh folks get this confused with a financial impact analysis and then also carrying out the statute requirements.

What we're required to do, and we send our certified mail notice to people within the annexation area, is we have a bullet point list that follows the state statute that says as a result of this annexation, what you're proposing and what you need to connect to utilities at this time is going to cost A, B, C and D.

And typically that is zero dollars.

And what that is in regard to is what is the city, the municipality going to charge or to demand for infrastructure improvements.

Back in the day when we annex Sunnyside edition, which is the area located to the east of Ridge Road out by college and further east out that direction.

With that, at the time of annexation, there's a requirement that people were um expected to construct a roadways.

So in that specific scenario, we would have had to provide a cost estimate for what those construction costs would have.

Maybe maybe I'm not being clear.

I asked about this annexation.

Yes, before us right now.

Do we have any such report?

Chair members of council, councilman layborn, yes, we do have that report, and we can send that directly to you all.

Well, I look forward to receiving it.

I think we should have received it uh prior to tonight because it has many interesting aspects.

And I think that uh certainly the other annexations are uh somewhat comparable, but uh I think this statute is clear, and uh I think that it isn't sending it out to uh those other people is for our evaluation to see if the four conditions of annexation are met.

It's a point of information um, Dr.

Aldrich.

Yeah, see, grave as a point of information.

If you look at that um 15-1-402 letter E, and the very last uh sentence there is the estimate shall be provided to the landowner and affected public utility prior to the hearing, not to the city council.

I see.

Well uh Mr.

President, I think what we have here is a real defect, a real defect in our process.

What kind of a process do we have here where that information is available to perhaps the adjacent landowner, but not to the people that make the decision?

Um I just I don't think it's the legislature, I think it's us, and I think we should have that information, Mr.

Chairman.

And I uh and furthermore, let me say this in regard to the action, the vote we're gonna take here soon.

There's been a lot of dodging and diving on this thing.

It's pretty clear.

This is a very serious, very major action.

It's on our part, it's on our shoulders, and I believe that this information is very relevant, and I believe that there's an extra effort that needs to be made in regard to these as we proceed as we get into a little later in this meeting, the uh reports that we got from the uh we're gonna have to overrule the planning commission.

There's a lot of factors here, and if they're all on the table, we make a better decision.

Thank you.

Further discussion, discussion.

Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye, and those opposed.

No, hands of the nose, councilman Wolf, Councilman Moody, Councilman Labourne.

The action is approved.

Next item, please.

Number 15 ordinance, second reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne establishing the zoning classification of AG agricultural for land annexed to the city of Cheyenne, located east of South Greeley Highway and south of the sweet grass subdivision.

Okay.

As uh Mayor Collins frequently says, once we move to annex a piece of property, we have to give it a zone.

Uh our motion is to give it a similar zone as to what it was in the county.

The reason for doing that is maybe not in this case, but at times the final zone is not known.

And so it we need to be able to uh operate the property uh within the city.

So this is asking us to zone the land we just discussed as agriculture.

And Jennifer, do you you're waving at me?

What is it?

Oh I'm just trying to get your that we have people online with our hands raised.

Okay, okay.

Okay, we're ready.

So that's what we're gonna discuss now is zoning this property as agriculture.

Let's start online.

Um who's our first person, Mr.

Don Stan, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Uh can you hear me?

We can okay.

Thanks for your uh your time tonight.

Um, I'm sorry, I was trying to get on earlier for the last discussion.

Um, I'm was opposed to uh, or I was for the the holding off for the four months to get more information.

I'm sorry, this is backtracking just a little bit.

Um everybody's been talking about disinformation.

Um, and it's you know, I own a house out in Sweetgrass.

Uh, we bought out here because of the country living, the lack of sound, lack of noise, lack of massive light systems uh to impede on our quality of Wyoming life, which is very important to us, is why we bought out here.

People out in the development paid more money to be on the outside edges, so they didn't have these big places obscuring their view and everything.

Um, and so we talk about being notified um about these meetings that are going on because I don't live in a 300 foot radius of the where it's going in, um, I was not notified.

If you're putting in a single house that you're annexing 300 feet is realistic, if you're putting in a massive data center that's taking up, you know, square mile or whatever.

Um that distance for the notification has to be scaled to that envelopment because it's going to affect you much more and if make more effects farther on.

Um, when I sit out on my deck at night, I like to be able to look up at the stars.

Um, if we've got this massive data center over there with all their lights and everything, there goes our view.

Um, that's why we moved out of town.

That's why we moved next to ranch land.

Um, and so that's a big impediment on our property rights, on our own rights.

Uh, same thing goes with sound.

Uh, there's going to be more noise out there.

Uh that's what we moved out to the edges for was to get away from the noise.

Um, we moved out here, you know, and nothing was set in stone, but we were told, okay, there's gonna be parks out there, there's gonna be a golf course out there.

That's fine.

That's that's landscape, that's you know, green.

But to hear that this large data center can come in, and one of the things they asked for special treatment, which Mr.

Noble said earlier they didn't ask for any special treatment was that the landscaping requirements were diminished for them.

Sir, we're we're talking about agriculture zoning here.

Well, you're talking about zoning on it, right?

But and I said, I'm sorry I I got in right a little bit about five minutes too late to be heard on the last time.

Um, and it's just that we need to be able to have a Wyoming quality of life.

Um, and that's what I'm saying.

Uh we don't know how this will affect our our property values.

We don't know how this is gonna affect our quality of life, which we have paid for.

Um, and and that's why you know we're against rushing through this process.

Um, you know, this information is we need to be more notified with everybody within a square mile of this development because that's what it's gonna affect people as, and we just don't feel that the everybody has made the attempt, the reasonable attempt to get the information out there and be able to hear other people's views.

Um not once have I heard a single content constituent say, I am for this data center who hasn't had their hand in the suburbial pot.

Um, and I understand that's how people make their livings, but this is also our quality of life.

Um, and that's you know, we appreciate you guys listening to this.

We appreciate your your time and consideration, but I think at the scale of this, there needs to be more information out there to people available without having to track it down through all the back links.

Um and I appreciate the time and appreciate you guys listening to me.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Next uh next person, Jennifer.

Um, before I go to the next person, I'd like to let the record show that Mayor Patrick Collins left the meeting at 9.18 p.m.

Uh, Mr.

Miller, you can go ahead and unmute yourself.

Hello, Mr.

Miller.

Mr.

Miller.

Hello, Miller.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you now, sir.

We're discussing zoning for agriculture.

Um for data center future use or agriculture.

We're zoning the property for agriculture.

Oh, okay.

And then uh the next is it the next one where you're gonna be immediately rezoning it to business park?

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Oh, okay, okay.

But you're splitting those two things up.

Yes, sir.

So they can't okay, okay.

I get it.

All right.

Um, excuse me.

Uh sorry about that, just one moment.

Um council members.

Uh Charles Miller for the record.

Uh for the permanent administrative record, um, Charles Miller.

My testimony is strictly germane to item to agenda item number 15.

Establish establishing the agricultural zoning classification for the 3,460 acres east of South Greeley Highway.

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay, I'm issuing a formal constructive notice that approving this ordinance is an intentional bad faith misrepresentation of the municipal zoning map and a fatal violation of the Topanga doctrine.

You are attempting to launder a trillion dollar hyperscale industrial complex through a fake farming classification.

You are assigning AG agricultural zoning to eight p eighteen percent of this city's land mass, future land mass, potentially, fully knowing the applicant intends to build a massive data center on it.

However, we don't actually know what they're intending to build on it because there's no no plans.

So um, however, your your own planner, Connor White, confessed this exact scheme on the live microphone.

He stated verbatim.

Why's why staff is recommending that uh be zoned AG to begin with when we know that they want to build a data center?

The reason is if council annexes it, zones it, and then doesn't zone it BP, it has a city zone, it has a backup zone, otherwise we're annexing another uh a parcel, not giving it a zone.

Um let the record reflect that the city planner openly admits you are applying a false classification simply to establish a backup zone.

Planning director Charles Bloom attempted to excuse this manipulation.

Uh actually, I believe was the Mr.

Mayor had already uh had also said this.

Annexation doesn't do anything but change the color of the map.

Um I'm sorry, one moment here.

Um Mr.

Miller, yeah.

Um, I'm sorry, one moment.

Uh you have no detailed design, you have no baseline data, and you'd your three minutes are up, sir.

Thank you.

Anyone else online, Jennifer?

Okay, we're gonna close the online discussion.

We'll bring it into the room.

Is there anyone in the room that would like to discuss zoning this property as agriculture?

Mr.

Emmons.

Um, Mr.

President, Council Members, Brad Emmons, ABI agent for the applicant.

Um, in this case, um the alumis Arpenham and uh people are keeping a portion of this, so not all of the zone changes going to transfer to BP.

The portion that the Lumis family is keeping is staying AR.

So I just wanted to kind of point out that the two of them are a little bit different.

In fact, um those areas that the sign zoning is is what they're keeping it.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else else in the room that would like to discuss this zoning action?

Hearing none, we'll close discussion and we'll bring it up on the diaspora motion, please.

Dr.

Alrich.

Mr.

President, the recommendation of the public services committee is to approve on second reading, and I sell move second.

Discussion.

Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

No.

Hands of the nose, please.

Uh, Councilman Moody and Councilman Layborn.

The action is approved.

Uh, I have been asked uh that we take a short break.

It is uh nine twenty-four.

Why don't we reconvene at uh nine thirty five?

And we'll keep pushing ahead here.

We've got quite a bit of an agenda to go.

Thank you.

Human, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay.

Okay.

We have everyone back.

Uh Jennifer, are you set to go?

Yes.

Jennifer, are you are you ready to go?

Okay.

With that, uh, let's go to the next item, which I believe is item number sixteen.

Number 16, ordinance second reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, changing the zoning classification for land located east of South Greeley Highway and south of the sweetgrass subdivision from AG Agricultural and PUD planned unit development to BP Business Park.

Okay, so what we're doing here is we're still talking about the same thirty five hundred acres.

A portion of that, roughly 3,000 acres, is being requested to be um considered as a business park, as Mr.

Emman said earlier, the remainder um will stay agriculture.

So that's what we're going to discuss now.

Uh we'll open it up to public comment and we'll start online, Jennifer.

Mr.

Miller, you can unmute yourself.

Can you hear me?

Mr.

Miller.

Yes, can you hear me?

We can go ahead.

Okay.

Um for the permanent administrative record, Charles Miller.

My testimony is strictly germane to agenda item number 16, the ordinance rezoning this land to business park.

I am issuing a formal constructive notice that approving this rezoning is an act of premeditated regulatory arbitrage and a fatal violation of the Taponga doctrine.

You are attempting to justify this massive rezoning by claiming it is for a Microsoft campus.

But maybe it's a data center, maybe it's not.

We don't know because there is no plan.

This is a Schrdinger's data center.

You're being asked to vote on a corporate hallucination.

Microsoft's own agent, Rachel Irving explicitly confessed on the record, given the early stage of this effort, Microsoft has not yet advanced detailed design for the campus.

Jonathan Noble admitted, we do not have a campus of this size to pull from.

Because you have no plan, you have no evidence under the Tapanga doctrine.

A zoning board cannot bridge the analytical gap with a blank check.

As resident Heather Madrid warned, without having a plan, it is impossible to prove that this annexation is protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community.

So why are you rushing to assign a permanent industrial entitlement to a ghost project?

The true motive is documented on your own microphones.

Councilwoman Emmons confessed that by applying this business park zoning, the Industrial Sighting Act going through the whole council process is waived.

Councilman Wolf defended this statutory evasion, stating verbatim, the legislature created this scheme.

So this is a legislative action over which we have no authority to disagree with.

You are actively gerrymandering the municipal map to execute a legislative scheme that deprives Laramie County of state-mandated socioeconomic impact fees.

You're allowing developers to manipulate the map by stringing properties together, no matter how many different properties they own, as confessed by ABI's Mark Christensen.

Furthermore, you're doing this based on a temporal fraud.

Councilman Layborne exposed the developer's timeline, stating verbatim, Microsoft has consistently told us that this project is 10 to 20 years in the future.

That has been your entire testimony.

You are rushing an emergency zoning waiver for a project two decades away while simultaneously ignoring the fact the developer, um, I'm sorry.

But the developer is already out there drilling wells on the site before this council has even voted.

This tribunal is a predetermined sham.

The evidence is void.

The scheme is confessed as requested by the public.

Please do not trade our communities long-term public voice for corporate handouts with zero guarantees.

I demand a no vote.

Thank you.

Anyone else, Jennifer?

Uh Maj, you can go ahead and unmute yourself.

Uh Nancy Chadek, I'm a county person.

Not a city person, but I've been both.

I'm a polymath and I look at things through a lot of different lenses.

And this annexation for me has so many questions, especially because the property owner is a politician, which means they deal with lobbyists and things that happen that we're not privy to.

It was already stated earlier this evening that the property had somebody come to them about it.

Which means that's like coaching, right?

And within all of this, it's interesting that they want to keep their own little parcel agricultural while selling out everything surrounding it in a way that the community is obviously against.

So in my opinion, this is very corrupt.

Um and you have to look at it from a lot of different angles.

And I'm not re relying on our local news to report on things like this.

I'm going to places like data centers.com, which gives a lot of up-to-date data center information.

And one of the key things in an article that was printed June 16th of this year, dealing with the expansion of data centers and Microsoft here in Cheyenne.

Land is becoming a strategic asset.

And it emerging markets are attracting greater attention.

Infrastructure development is becoming more geographically diverse.

Campus scale planning is replacing smaller deployment model.

We don't want it's growth.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Another one.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you for.

Hello.

Miss was it Evans, Ms.

Evans?

Ms.

Evans.

Jen?

I I I show that she's on muted.

I do have another person, so if we want to maybe go to them and then we can come back.

Okay, if she's still there, we'll come back.

Okay, so uh Stephen Lowe, you can go ahead.

Sorry, love.

Stephen Love.

Mr.

Love.

Hi, my name's Steven Love, Ward One.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

Go ahead.

Uh I'm a long-time listener, first-time caller.

Um I'd just like to remind everyone that the way Wyoming was founded was with strong property rights.

And that can change to define us as a people.

Let these people do what they want with their land.

If you're worried about data centers, call for the lowering of the noise ordinance or impose water taxes on data centers, but don't tell people what they can and can't do with their land.

Wyoming is losing a youth at a staggering rate, and it's because of a stagnant economy.

We have to prevent industry to improve our economy.

Support homeowner-initiated annexation, oppose forced annexation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Love.

Jennifer, do we have Miss Evansbag?

Nope, it looks like she dropped off.

All right.

Anyone else?

Alright, we'll close the uh online.

Anyone in the room that would like to discuss this um zoning ordinance.

Mr.

Emmons.

Uh President Council members, uh Brad Evans, ABI agent for the applicant.

Uh and um just wanted to follow up a little bit more to um state that the existing developer they kept the diagonal AG area so they can save continue to save the ridge.

They are still developing the sweet grass subdivision, and they have located this area in an area where they think it will not affect their development.

They would not have sold land if they thought it would or proposed to sell land to an area.

So to say that they're not paying attention to that is is not true.

They've they're saved the AG area, and they've located this in an area that they feel would not uh have uh bad intentions on their residential development.

Um the other thing I wanted to say about the uh annexation and zone changes we did also have a adjacent neighbor meeting and we invited everybody in the Grasshill subdivision, which is to the southeast of this.

Uh it's a county subdivision that is actually has the closest houses uh to this property.

Um we had that uh the end of May.

Um and um we did have three of the neighbors come to that meeting.

Uh we answered probably 15, 20 of their questions.

Uh most of their stuff was about uh noise.

Um we talked about how we were gonna mitigate that.

So just wanted to let uh this council know we did have a neighborhood meeting for adjacent in the grass hill subdivision.

So happy to add to any questions that council asked.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Yes, ma'am.

Please turn that on until it see the green light and then speak right into it so everyone can hear.

Hello, my name is Amanda Augusta.

I live in Cheyenne and I work for Microsoft overseeing all physical security operations in Cheyenne.

I'm a member of the community, and I understand not everyone sees data center growth the same way, but I'd like to share what I've personally witnessed over the past four and a half years since I've been here.

When we talk about data centers, it's easy to picture buildings and servers.

What I see every day are people in our buildings.

Just last week alone, we had 516 vendors visit all of our campuses to support ongoing operations and maintenance.

Today, Microsoft employs 267 full-time employees alongside approximately 245 dedicated support staff, specifically that are security and critical environments across our three campuses.

That's over a thousand people per week that are showing up to our data centers, and this doesn't include the people who work to help our data centers but don't need to physically show up but live in Cheyenne.

These are good paying careers with opportunities for growth.

I've personally witnessed vendors gain experience and build skills to move into Microsoft roles.

Others have started with Microsoft with no technical experience or skills and have progressed to managers within a few years.

I've also had the opportunity to participate in programs such as Empower Her and the Trades Exploration Day at Archer.

The enthusiasm from students and even teachers is remarkable.

They want to know what the careers are and what's available to them and how they can be a part of the future.

As the Cowboys State Daily stated yesterday in the news, Wyoming loses roughly 70% of its residents by the time they reach 30.

This can be an amazing way to keep youth in Cheyenne, whether it's working for Microsoft or being a part of the trades that help run our data centers every day.

The reality is data centers power much of our modern day life from businesses, schools, healthcare systems, public services, and the technology we use every day.

The infrastructure located here in Cheyenne plays a key role to keeping those systems running.

As our community considers future growth, I encourage us to look beyond the buildings themselves and consider the opportunities they create, jobs, technical education partnerships with local schools, and long-term investment in Cheyenne.

I'm proud of the work we do.

I'm proud of the people that make this happen every day, and I'm proud that Cheyenne continues to be a place where innovation and opportunity to grow can grow, and I'm proud to be a member of this community.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Yes, sir.

There you go.

Okay.

If you can speak right into that microphone for us, yes.

Good evening.

My name is Kevin Banish.

I've lived in the Cheyenne area since 2004.

I'm a lifelong Wyoming resident and have worked at Microsoft Cheyenne Data Center since 2013.

I'm here tonight in support of adding this land for future data center development.

When I was young and interested in technology, I didn't think there would be a career for me in Wyoming.

Today there's hundreds of people building technology careers right here in Cheyenne.

Over the last 13 years, I've watched Microsoft's presence in our community grow from a few facilities into a major contributor to our local economy.

I've seen local contractors and many other businesses benefit from data center development.

These facilities are not just buildings, they represent long-term investment in our community, creating both construction and permanent jobs throughout the local economy.

Microsoft reports that it is now the number one taxpayer in the city of Cheyenne and the number two taxpayer in Laramie County, contributing significant property tax revenue that helps support local services and infrastructure.

Today's students in Wyoming can look at careers in technology, engineering, construction, operations, networking, and skilled trades, and know those careers exist right here at home.

They no longer have to assume that opportunity only exists somewhere else.

Data centers are also critical infrastructure for a modern economy.

The cloud services, communications systems, healthcare technologies, and business services that people rely on every day, all depend on facilities like the ones we have here.

China's become a recognized leader in this industry.

Approving this land edition would continue that momentum, can position our community for future investment, future jobs, and future opportunities.

As a lifetime Wyoming resident and as someone who's worked in this industry locally since 2013, I believe this is a positive step in Cheyenne's future.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Yes, sir.

Welcome.

Good evening, City Council members and all the supporters of Cheyenne.

My name is Brian Church.